Hearing

HEARING TO EXAMINE THE ROLE OF THE
SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE

PROGRAM IN RELATION TO OTHER FEDERAL
ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS,

OVERSIGHT, AND NUTRITION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JULY 24, 2014
Serial No. 11318
(
Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
agriculture.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON
88943 PDF
2014
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 5121800; DC area (202) 5121800
Fax: (202) 5122104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 204020001
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 5011
Sfmt 5011
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma, Chairman
COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, Ranking
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia,
Minority Member
Vice Chairman
MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina
STEVE KING, Iowa
DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
JIM COSTA, California
MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania
MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio
BOB GIBBS, Ohio
JAMES P. MCGOVERN, Massachusetts
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
SUZAN K. DELBENE, Washington
SCOTT R. TIPTON, Colorado
GLORIA NEGRETE MCLEOD, California
ERIC A. RICK CRAWFORD, Arkansas
FILEMON VELA, Texas
SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee
CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York
MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin
RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota
PETE P. GALLEGO, Texas
DAN BENISHEK, Michigan
WILLIAM L. ENYART, Illinois
JEFF DENHAM, California
JUAN VARGAS, California
STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee
CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
DOUG LAMALFA, California
SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
JOHN GARAMENDI, California
CHRIS COLLINS, New York
TED S. YOHO, Florida
VANCE M. MCALLISTER, Louisiana
NICOLE SCOTT, Staff Director

KEVIN J. KRAMP, Chief Counsel
TAMARA HINTON, Communications Director
ROBERT L. LAREW, Minority Staff Director
SUBCOMMITTEE
ON
DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS, OVERSIGHT,
AND
NUTRITION
STEVE KING, Iowa, Chairman

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio, Ranking Minority
BOB GIBBS, OHIO
Member
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
JAMES P. MCGOVERN, Massachusetts
MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee
GLORIA NEGRETE MCLEOD, California
VANCE M. MCALLISTER, Louisiana
(II)
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 0486
Sfmt 0486
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
CONTENTS
Page
Fudge, Hon. Marcia L., a Representative in Congress from Ohio, opening

statement ..............................................................................................................
King, Hon. Steve, a Representative in Congress from Iowa, opening statement ......................................................................................................................
Prepared statement ..........................................................................................
Lujan Grisham, Hon. Michelle, a Representative in Congress from New Mexico, supplementary information ..........................................................................
5
1
3
59
WITNESSES
Squier, Sidonie, Secretary, New Mexico Human Services Department, Santa
Fe, NM; on behalf of Secretarys Innovation Group ..........................................
Doar, Robert, Morgridge Fellow in Poverty Studies, American Enterprise
Institute, Washington, D.C. ................................................................................
Dean, Stacy, Vice President for Food Assistance Policy, Center on Budget
and Policy Priorities, Washington, D.C. .............................................................
(III)
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 5904
Sfmt 5904
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
7
8
15
16
26
28
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 5904
Sfmt 5904
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
HEARING TO EXAMINE THE ROLE OF THE

SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM IN RELATION TO OTHER FEDERAL
ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
THURSDAY, JULY 24, 2014
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS, OVERSIGHT,
AND NUTRITION,
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:30 p.m., in Room
1300, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Steve King [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives King, Scott, Gibbs, McAllister,
Lucas (ex officio), Fudge, McGovern, Lujan Grisham, and Negrete
McLeod.
Staff present: Josh Mathis, Kevin Kramp, Mary Nowak, Nicole
Scott, Skylar Sowder, Tamara Hinton, Lisa Shelton, Liz Friedlander, and Robert L. Larew.
SUBCOMMITTEE
ON
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE KING, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM IOWA
The CHAIRMAN. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, and Nutrition to examine the role of
the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in relation to
other Federal assistance programs, will come to order. The chair
will recognize himself for an opening statement.
First, I want to thank you all for being here today to discuss a
program that serves a vital role: feeding the hungry. Thank you to
our witnesses for joining us today. I look forward to hearing your
testimony.
The purpose of todays hearing is to examine the role of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programor as we call it, SNAP
in relation to other Federal assistance programs such as the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF program, and
school meals.
SNAP is the Federal Governments primary food assistance program that currently serves on average 47 million people per month.
SNAP benefits are fully financed by the Federal Government and
cost-share between states and the Federal Government is in place
for administrative costs only.
No matter what side of the aisle you sit on, we can all agree on
the importance of SNAP and helping those in need. However, with
(1)
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
2
soaring deficits and out-of-control national debt, we must be mindful of this grave financial situation. We, as Members of Congress,
have a responsibility to the American people to oversee Federal
programs paid for by the taxpayer to ensure that they are operating in the most efficient, cost-effective manner.
SNAP is a program that has seen considerable growth in recent
years. Since 2008, the cost of the program has more than doubled.
And while the recession has certainly played a part in the dramatic
growth of the program, there have been policies put in place by the
current Administration to expand participation. It is my hope that
today we can all learn more about these policies and take a look
into the growth of SNAP.
As you all know, my colleagues and I recently finished the
lengthy process of passing a farm bill. And while I think I can
speak for the rest of my colleagues in saying that I am pleased to
have that job behind usI know I speak for the Chairman when
I say thatthe job of Congress is never finished. We must continue
to educate each other on Federal programs and exercise our responsibility of oversight.
One particular concern of mine, which we attempted to address
in the farm bill, is the interaction of SNAP it has with the Low Income Heat Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP. The Food and
Nutrition Act of 2008 and the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 provide that low-income households receiving any
LIHEAP payments will also qualify for SNAP, SNAPs Standard
Utility Allowance, or SUA. SUA is our standardized amount used
in place of actual utility costs to calculate a households shelter
costs when determining SNAP benefits, and which can be used essentially to plus up eligibility.
Unfortunately, in the last several years states have been taking
advantage of a loophole in how LIHEAP payments interact with
SNAP benefit calculations. Any amount of LIHEAP assistance allowed a household to automatically receive the SNAP SUA. Since
SNAP benefits are 100 percent Federal dollars, states have been
using this loophole to bring more SNAP benefits to their state, increasing the cost to the Federal Government, and, I would add,
transferring wealth across the countryside.
Consequently, there were approximately 16 states and the District of Columbia that had been sending payments as low as 10
to low-income households so they may take advantage of SNAP
SUA. In the farm bill we addressed this loophole by requiring a
householder receive a minimum LIHEAP payment of $20 before
they can receive the SNAP SUA. However, there have been a number of states, and I will name themNew York, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Montana, Oregon, Massachusettsseven
states in all announced that they will continue to, let me say, expand and utilize this loophole by sending out $20 LIHEAP statements payments to continue the heat-and-eat abuse.
In addition, there are three states considering the same actions,
at least as has been reported in the press, and that would be California, Wisconsin, and Vermont. Also, Speaker Boehner has strongly voiced his objection to this kind of abuse.
Continued use of the heat-and-eat loophole threatens the amount
of savings that will actually be achieved with SNAP reform. This
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
3
Committee is concerned, as I am. I hope throughout the hearing we
will be able to hear from our panelists about this issue.
Before us today is a panel of three witnesses that have an extensive knowledge of SNAP and have seen firsthand how many of
these programs interact. We are joined by Sidonie Squier, Secretary for Human Services Department in New Mexico, as well as
a member of the Secretarys Innovation Group, or SIG. Secretary
Squier has experienced working as an Associate Commissioner
with the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, as well
as Director of Economic Self-Sufficiency and Welfare Reform Administrator of the Florida Department of Children and Families.
We have also Robert Doar, who is currently a Fellow at the
American Enterprise Institute. Previously, Mr. Doar served as a
Commissioner of New York Citys Human Resources Administration, where he administered 12 public assistance programs. Most
recently, Mr. Doar has been appointed to the National Hunger
Commission, a bipartisan panel tasked with developing recommendations to reduce the need for government nutrition programs while maintaining a safety net for the poor.
And we have Stacy Dean, Vice President for Food Assistance Policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Ms. Dean brings
a unique perspective, having previously worked in the Office of
Management and Budget before spending the last 17 years working
extensively with program administration and policymakers on nutrition policy.
We appreciate the time each of you has given us to prepare for
this hearing. Your testimony will be very helpful for us to better
understand how SNAP interacts with other Federal programs. I
thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. King follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT
OF
HON. STEVE KING,

IOWA
REPRESENTATIVE
IN
CONGRESS
FROM
Good afternoon.
Thank you all for being here today to discuss a program that serves a vital role:
feeding the hungry. Thank you to our witnesses for joining us today. I look forward
to hearing your testimony.
The purpose of todays hearing is to examine the role of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or as we call it, SNAP, in relation to other Federal assistance programs, such as the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program and School Meals.
SNAP is the Federal Governments primary food assistance program that currently serves on average 47 million people per month. SNAP benefits are fully financed by the Federal Government, and a cost-share between states and the Federal Government is in place for administrative costs.
No matter what side of the aisle you sit on, we can all agree on the importance
of SNAP in helping those in need. However, with soaring deficits and an out of control national debt, we must be mindful of this grave fiscal situation. We as Members
of Congress have a responsibility to the American people to oversee Federal programs paid for by the taxpayer to ensure that they are operating in the most efficient, cost-effective manner.
SNAP is a program that has seen considerable growth in recent years. Since 2008,
the cost of the program has more than doubled. While the recession has certainly
played a part in the dramatic growth of the program, there have been policies put
in place by the current Administration to expand participation. It is my hope that
today we can all learn more about these policies and take a closer look into the
growth of SNAP.
As you all know, my colleagues and I recently finished the lengthy process of
passing a farm bill. While I think I can speak for the rest of my colleagues in saying
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
4
that I am pleased to have that behind us, the job of Congress is never finished. We
must continue to educate ourselves on Federal programs and exercise our responsibility of oversight.
One particular concern of mine, which we attempted to address in the farm bill,
is the interaction SNAP has with the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP.
The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 and the Low Income Home Energy Assistance
Act of 1981 provide that low-income households receiving any LIHEAP payments
will also qualify for the SNAP Standard Utility Allowance (SUA). SUAs are a standardized amount used in place of actual utility costs to calculate a households shelter
costs when determining SNAP benefits.
Unfortunately, in the last several years, states have been taking advantage of a
loophole in how LIHEAP payments interact with SNAP benefit calculation. Any
amount of LIHEAP assistance allows a household to automatically receive the
SNAP SUA. Since SNAP benefits are 100 percent Federal dollars, states have been
using this loophole to bring more SNAP benefits to their state, increasing costs to
the Federal Government.
Consequently, there were approximately 16 states and the District of Columbia
that had been sending payments as low as 10 to low-income households so they
may take advantage of the SNAP SUA.
In the farm bill, we addressed this loophole by requiring a household to receive
a minimum LIHEAP payment of $20 before they can receive the SNAP SUA. However, there have been a number of states (New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy, Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett, Rhode Island Gov.
Lincoln Chafee, Montana Gov. Steve Bullock, Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber, and
Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick) announced that they will continue to extort this
loophole by sending out $20 LIHEAP payments to continue the Heat and Eat
scam. In addition, three states are considering the same actions (California Gov.
Jerry Brown, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, and Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin).
Since the passage of the farm bill, states have found ways to cheat, once again,
on signing up people for food stamps, said Speaker John Boehner (ROH). And
so I would hope that the House would act to try to stop this cheating and this fraud
from continuing.
Continued use of the Heat and Eat loophole threatens the amount of savings
that will actually be achieved with SNAP reform. This is very concerning to me. I
hope throughout the hearing, we will be able to hear from our panelists about this
issue.
Before us today is a panel of three witnesses that have an extensive knowledge
of SNAP and have seen firsthand how many of these programs interact.
We are joined by Sidonie Squier, Secretary for the Human Services Department
in New Mexico as well as a member of the Secretarys Innovation Group. Secretary
Squier has experience working as an Associate Commissioner with the Texas Health
and Human Services Commission as well as Director of Economic Self-Sufficiency
and Welfare Reform Administrator in the Florida Department of Children and Families.
We have Robert Doar, who is currently a Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Previously Mr. Doar served as Commissioner of New York Citys Human Resources Administration where he administered 12 public assistance programs. Most
recently, Mr. Doar has been appointed to the National Hunger Commission, a bipartisan panel tasked with developing recommendations to reduce the need for government nutrition programs while maintaining a safety net for the poor.
Last, we have Stacy Dean, Vice President for Food Assistance Policy at the Center
on Budget and Policy Priorities. Ms. Dean brings a unique perspective, having previously worked at the Office of Management and Budget before spending the last
17 years working extensively with program administrators and policymakers on nutrition policy.
We appreciate the time each of you has given to prepare for this hearing. Your
testimony will be very helpful for us to better understand how SNAP interacts with
other Federal programs. Thank you.
I would like to recognize my colleague from Ohio, Ranking Member Fudge, for any
opening remarks she may have.
The CHAIRMAN. And I would like to now recognize my colleague

from Ohio, Ranking Member Fudge, for any opening remarks she
may have.
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
5
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARCIA L. FUDGE, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM OHIO
Ms. FUDGE. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Let me just say
I just received notice that they have called votes. And so, unfortunately, as we thought might happen, we are going to be playing
around our vote schedule. But I will start, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you so much for holding this hearing today on SNAP.
And I thank all of our witness for being here.
It is certainly timely to have our first hearing of this Subcommittee on SNAP. I am glad to have this opportunity for us to
learn more about this program. Earlier this year, the President
signed into law a bipartisan farm bill where Members of both sides
of the aisle and across Chambers were able to reach a consensus
and show the country Congress can indeed work together.
I dont think anyone was fully happy with the compromise
reached, but on balance it met the needs of the American people
by providing certainty and sound agricultural policies for our consumers, farmers, and ranchers.
It is important to talk about the farm bill in the context of todays hearing, because SNAP was one of the many controversial
issues we had to work through in order to reach a compromise.
That is why it is concerning to me when I hear reports of some of
my colleagues wanting to suggest changes to a law that was enacted just a few months ago and is still in the process of being implemented.
We negotiated the farm bill for the last 3 years, and it is now
time to move on. Going forward, I hope we can better educate ourselves on nutrition programs in preparation for the next farm bill.
Statistics show that SNAP is working well. It is a powerful antipoverty program that has been efficient, effective, and highly responsive to the needs of the people. According to the Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities, SNAP lifted nearly 4.7 million Americans out of poverty in 2011, including about 2.1 million children.
Further, SNAP benefits often function as an economic stimulus, as
every $1 in SNAP benefits generates about $1.70 in economic activity.
Critics of the program like to point out that the number of participants has risen in recent times. This is not surprising, as
growth can largely be attributed to the recession. The number of
unemployed Americans increased by 94 percent from 2007 to 2011,
and SNAP responded with a 70 percent increase over the same period. However, SNAP enrollment growth slowed in 2012 as the
economy began to recover. Also, the Congressional Budget Office
predicts that SNAP spending will begin to decline in 2015, with
both unemployment and SNAP participation returning to pre-recession levels by 2022.
These statistics show that SNAP is operating as it should, providing a supplemental source of funds to assist families with food
purchases during tough times. The farm bill created pilot work programs with a focus on employment and training. Current law requiresI say requiresSNAP participants to register for work, accept job offers, and participate in workshare or training programs
if they are offered. States may also require job training.
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
6
Over the last decade the number of low-income working households on SNAP has risen dramatically, from two million in 2000 to
about 6.4 million in 2011. This disappointing trend reflects both a
rise in SNAP participation among eligible low-income working
households, as well as wage erosion at the low end of the wage
scale. Some workers earn wages so low that even full-time, yearround employment is inadequate to keep their family out of poverty. In fact, the share of workers with below-poverty wages was
28 percent in 2011.
Further, there is often more to the story than meets the eye regarding those SNAP participants who do not work. These individuals are not lazy. Rather, in many cases they lack the necessary
job skills for employment or access to affordable child care and
transportation.
I am hopeful the pilot programs created by the farm bill will
produce innovative approaches to ensuring low-income working
families can secure employment with adequate wages, so they can
lift themselves out of poverty and off of SNAP.
Contrary to what some critics of the program may believe, most
Americans want a hand up, not a handout. As Members of the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, and Nutrition, it
is imperative that we take the time to fully understand the intricacies of SNAP.
As I said at the beginning of my statement, I hope this is an
issue we can continue to explore as we look ahead to the next farm
bill. We have invited three experts witnesses to this hearing so we
can learn more about SNAP and how it interacts with other Federal assistance programs. I am looking forward to hearing what
they have to say.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. I thank Ranking Member Fudge for her opening
statement and turn to the Chairman of the full Committee, Mr.
Lucas, for any statement he might have.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I would waive off a statement in recognition of the fact that we have a vote underway on the floor.
The CHAIRMAN. I thank the Chairman. And I would point out
that we are nearly 10 minutes into the vote that has been called
and roughly 5 or so minutes left to go on to that tally. We expect
that it is going to be a relatively long series of votes, perhaps an
hour. But this hearing is in recess, subject to the call of the chair.
And I advise the Members that it is my intention to resume the
hearing immediately after the series of votes. Thank you.
[Recess.]
The CHAIRMAN. The chair will call this hearing back to order and
refresh us on our status: that is that the opening statements were
concluded, the witnesses were introduced, and other Members were
asked to include any opening statement into the record.
And at this point, I would like to recognize Ms. Squier for her
testimony.
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
7
STATEMENT OF SIDONIE SQUIER, SECRETARY, NEW MEXICO
HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT, SANTA FE, NM; ON BEHALF
OF SECRETARYS INNOVATION GROUP
Ms. SQUIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I am very appreciative of this opportunity to appear as the
Secretary of New Mexicos Department of Human Services. My Department administers food stamps, TANF, Medicaid, LIHEAP and
many other human service programs.
In addition, I am a member of the Secretarys Innovation Group.
The CHAIRMAN. Can you pull the microphone a little closer,
please?
Ms. SQUIER. I can. And that is a network of 17 human service
secretaries reporting to their governors from states that represent
34 percent of the U.S. Our members favor policies that promote
work, self-sufficiency, and healthy families.
Last year, and this year, we were pleased to work with Members
of this Committee and Representative Steve Southerland in the development and passage of the ten state food stamp work demonstration to be implemented no later than February of this coming
year. I am pretty sure New Mexico is going to be involved in that.
The Food Stamp Program, or SNAP, is a food supplement program whose intended purpose is to assure individuals with the
very lowest incomes have enough to eat. But, regrettably, this program has strayed from its earlier worthwhile purpose. As a way of
comparison, in the year of 2001, one out of every 14 households received food stamps. But in just a little more than a decade, one in
five American households has now become dependent on taxpayerfunded food assistance.
Is it likely that the proportion of American households unable to
afford the purchase of sufficient food has increased more than
threefold during that period? At the same time, the number of nonworking, able-bodied households receiving benefits has ballooned. If
you will look, you will see a chart that shows just that. It is very
simple so I dont think I need to walk you through it.
The financial costs of distributing free food to such a large portion of American families is a substantial burden on the average
American taxpayer. Currently, 65 million households pay net Federal income tax. The rest pay nothing or else they receive a payment through the EITC. The amount of annual Federal income
taxes needed to pay food stamp benefits is an astonishing $1,300
per income-taxpaying households. With an average food stamp
monthly benefit of $275, this means that each Federal income-taxpaying household is buying almost 5 months of groceries for other
families each year.
With food stamp usage now cutting a swath well into the middle
class, is it fair to ask if we were anticipating that average Americans would be buying each other their groceries through the Federal Government?
The recent recession has absolutely played a role in the enrollment surge, but it does not account for the size. As the chart below
again very clearly shows, food stamp caseloads have gone up and
down during periods of expansion and contraction without close
correlation to the economic conditions. For example, during the pe-
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
8
riod of strong economic growth between 2001 and 2007, food stamp
caseloads increased by more than 50 percent.
More significant factors include Federal policy changes, in particular the aggressive Federal pressure on states to recruit additional beneficiaries, combined with the loosening of eligibility rules
through a provision of law called categorical eligibility. Categorical
eligibility permits households to bypass the normal income limit of
130 percent of the poverty level and the resource limit also of
$2,000 to $3,250 imposed by SNAP if these households are eligible
for TANF or SSI or the State General Assistance Program.
The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Squier?
Ms. SQUIER. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. As the clock has ticked down on the 5 minutes,
could I ask you to summarize the balance of your testimony, and
we will try get the rest of it in questions, please?
Ms. SQUIER. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
Ms. SQUIER. So the thing that I want to bring home the most
today, I wont even read it, is that because of this provision called
categorical eligibility, in New Mexico, for instance, anybody who
touches the TANF programwhich can be anybody in the state,
because the TANF program touches things like marriage or counseling or fatherhood that dont have anything to do with assets at
all. So you could have millions of dollars in the bank and still be
eligible for food stamps just because you are touched by a TANF
program, even something as simple as a brochure.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Squier follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SIDONIE SQUIER, SECRETARY, NEW MEXICO HUMAN
SERVICES DEPARTMENT, SANTA FE, NM; ON BEHALF OF SECRETARYS INNOVATION
GROUP
Greetings Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
Thank you for this opportunity. As the Secretary of New Mexicos Department of
Human Services, our department administers Food Stamps, TANF, Medicaid and
other human service programs. In addition, I am a member of the Secretarys Innovation Group, a network of 17 state human services secretaries reporting to their
governors from states representing 34% of the U.S. Our members actively seek to
promote policies that advance work, self-sufficiency and healthy families. Last year
and this year we were pleased to work with Members of this Committee and Rep.
Steve Southerland toward the development and passage in the farm bill of the ten
state Food Stamp Work Demonstration to be implemented no later than February
of this coming year.
The Food Stamp program, or SNAP, is a food supplement program whose intended purpose is to assure individuals with the very lowest incomes have enough
to eat. But regrettably the program has strayed from this earlier worthwhile purpose. As a way of comparison, in the year 2001, one out of every fourteen U.S.
households received Food Stamps. But in just a little more than a decade one in five
American households has now become dependent on taxpayer funded food assistance.
Is it likely that the proportion of American households unable to afford the purchase
of sufficient food has increased more than threefold during this period? 1 At the
same time the number of beneficiaries who are able bodied and not working has
ballooned.
1 Data
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
from Congressional Research Service; Food and Nutrition Service; U.S. Census Bureau.
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
9
After Declining During the Five Year Period After TANF Work-Based Reforms, Non-Working Able Bodied Food Stamp Households Jump
Source: Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. Excludes

elderly and disabled.
The financial costs of distributing free food to such a large proportion of American
families is a substantial burden on the average American taxpayer. To place this
in perspective, sixty five million households pay net Federal income tax (the rest
pay nothing or else receive a cash payment via the EITC).2 The amount of Federal
income taxes needed to pay Food Stamp benefits for 1 year is an astonishing $1,300
on average per income taxpaying household.3 The average Food Stamp monthly benefit is $275 which means that each Federal income taxpaying household is buying
almost 5 months of groceries for other families each year.4 With Food Stamp usage
now at one in five families and cutting a swath well into the middle class, is it fair
to ask if we were anticipating that this many Americans would be buying each other
their groceries through the Federal Government?
The recent recession has played a role in the Food Stamp enrollment surge, but
it does not account for its size. As the chart below shows, Food Stamp caseloads
have gone up and down during periods of expansion and contraction without close
correlation to economic conditions. For example during the recent period of strong
national economic growth between 2001 and 2007 Food Stamp caseloads nevertheless increased by more than 50%.5 More significant factors accounting for the enrollment surge relate to Federal policy changes, in particular the aggressive Federal
pressure on states to recruit additional beneficiaries, combined with the loosening
of eligibility rules. One of these loosened standards is a provision called broad
based categorical eligibility.
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
11318001.eps
2 The Tax Policy Center estimates that 56.7 percent of households paid Federal income taxes
in 2013 (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/federal-taxes-households.cfm). There were an
average of 115.2 million American households in the period between 20082012 (Census Bureau
(http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html). Accordingly, approximately 65 million
households had net Federal income tax liability in 2013.
3 Those with high earnings contribute more than $1,300 per year; those with low earnings
less. The middle 15 of American households pay $12,800 in annual Federal income taxes.
4 Average monthly benefit per household 2013, FNS.
5 Food and Nutrition Service program participation tables.
10
Food Stamp Caseload Changes Do Not Directly Correlate to Economic Conditions
Source: Food and Nutrition Service; U.S. Dept. of Agriculture; and Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Dept. of Commerce.
Broad based categorical eligibility allows households to bypass the normal income
limit of 130% of poverty and resource limit of $2,000 to $3,250 imposed by SNAP
if these households are eligible for TANF, SSI or state general assistance programs.6
The original idea was that these other programs have their own income and resource tests, more stringent than Food Stamps, and therefore calculating a separate
eligibility determination just for Food Stamps was redundant.
However this is no longer the case, because an entire states population can now
be eligible for TANF services. With the passage of 1996 welfare reform law, the nature of the new TANF program broadened beyond cash assistance, so that now less
than 30% of TANF expenditures are made in the form of traditional cash distribution.7 Other services, for example efforts to reduce out of wedlock pregnancies or to
promote two parent families, are potentially available to a states entire population,
and subsidized child care represents an increasing share of benefit dollars.8 Under
current FNS guidance, even the distribution of a TANF brochure or an 800 information number qualifies an individual as a TANF beneficiary and triggers SNAP categorical eligibility.9 In a paper issued under contract to USDA, researchers concluded that elimination of the asset test in a state inflates the Food Stamp caseload
by an estimated 22%.10
In 2009 FNS sent a directive to its regional administrators (copy below) stating
that: We encourage you to continue promoting categorical eligibility as a way to increase SNAP participation and reduce state workloads. In that year and the next,
twenty eight new states adopted categorical eligibility (including New Mexico under
a prior Administration), and as of now 43 states have adopted the provision.11 We
think that this FNS policy directive was misguided.
Prior to the aggressive attempts by FNS to expand the Food Stamp program using
broad based categorical eligibility, those with sizeable savings or assets were expected to use these resources before asking for taxpayer funded food assistance.
6 For
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
11318002.eps
a detailed description of SNAP eligibility requirements see GAO12670.

7 CRS, The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Categorical Eligibility. In FY 2011
29% of benefits were in the form of cash.
8 Ibid.
9 Under categorical eligibility Federal asset and income tests are substituted by state limits
if any.
10 Karen Cunnyngham and James Ohls, Simulated Effects of Changes to State and Federal
Asset Eligibility Policies for the Food Stamp Program, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service, Contractor and Cooperator Report No. 49, October 2008, p. xvi, http://
naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/26691/PDF. GAO estimates are lower; see GAO12670, Improved Oversight of State Eligibility Expansions Needed.
11 GAO12670; and CRS, The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Categorical Eligibility.
11
Similarly, those who were employed and earning a lower middle class income or
above (130% of poverty or more) were expected to buy their own groceries out of
their earnings. This is no longer necessarily the case.
During the consideration of the farm bill, the House voted to end the categorical
eligibility provision, although it was retained in the final version. I think, as do the
members of the Secretarys Innovation Group, that categorical eligibility as currently constituted is not prudent, and that the House may wish to reconsider this
part of the law and FNS practice in its promotion to states.
Thank you.
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
12
Letter from USDA Encouraging States To Increase Food Stamp Caseloads
of Households With Income and Assets Over Limit Using Categorical
Eligibility
APPENDIX
Reforming Food Stamps (SNAP)
By The Secretarys Innovation Group
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
11318003.eps
November 2012
Principal Authors:
13
MAURA CORRIGAN, Lead Secretary, Michigan Department of Human Services
LILLIAN KOLLER, Director, South Carolina Department of Social Services
SUZY SONNIER, Secretary, Louisiana Department of Children and Family Services
PHYLLIS GILLMORE, Secretary, Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation
Services
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or food stamp program,
was unaffected by the welfare reforms of the 1990s. Because it lacks the work requirements of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, it
does little to promote self-sufficiency. Nor can it properly be called a nutrition program, as there are no limitations or incentives in place to promote the purchase of
healthy food.
The food stamp program is the second most expensive means-tested government
assistance program after Medicaid. It is part of a system of sixty programs that provide cash, food, housing, and social services to low-income Americans, and is one of
twelve programs that provide food assistance to the poor. As with all the other cash
and in-kind benefits, food stamps should be analyzed in the context of the much
larger means-tested system. Total means-tested Federal and state spending has
more than doubled over the past decade, increasing from $431 billion in 2000 to
$927 billion in 2011. The food stamp portion of this spending has increased more
than four times, from $20 billion in 2000 to $85 billion in 2011.
Fundamental reform of the food stamp program is needed to control costs, ensure
that limited resources are used to benefit those truly in need, and to refocus the
program on promoting employment and self-sufficiency for able-bodied, working-age
recipients. The best way to accomplish these goals is by converting the program to
a fixed allocation, changing eligibility and work requirements, and allowing states
significant flexibility in implementing those requirements. This would enable states
to use the strategies that have proven effective under the TANF program. In addition, states should have the authority and obligation to pursue robust anti-fraud
and recoupment programs.
Problems With the Food Stamp Program as Currently Constituted
Lack of Reciprocity
There is an imbalance in fairness between the taxpayer and many recipients of
food stamps. The program has left behind its original purpose of feeding those who
might literally go hungry, and now cuts a swath deep into the middle class, subsidizing food purchases among many who are clearly able to afford their nutritional
needs. The current food stamp program asks almost nothing from most non-working, able-bodied recipients in order to obtain these benefitsnot to work, to look for
work, or to prepare for work. Like the successful welfare reform of the 1990s, the
program should be restructured so that it is primarily a temporary safety net designed to move most recipients to self-sufficiency.
Long Term Dependency
Historically, about 12 of food stamp assistance has gone to families with children
who have received benefits for more than 8 years. The current program is failing
to promote self-sufficiency. Given the sharp increase in caseloads since 2008, there
is a danger that long-term dependency will be created among a new segment of formerly self-sufficient individuals and families. By 2010, one in five American households were receiving food stamps, and more than half of the 10.5 million households
with at least one able-bodied, working-age adult had no employed member. Another
million to two million households included adults who worked less than full time.
Recipients Are No Longer Asked To Look to Their Own Resources First Before Asking
for Public Transfers
Half of all current recipients are eligible for food stamps because of the expansion
of a loophole that eliminates restrictions on the amount of assets an applicant may
have and still qualify. In prior years, those with temporarily low incomes but large
savings or assets were expected to use those resources before turning to food
stamps. Thus, those reaching the end of unemployment benefits but with thousands
in the bank, and farmers who had a bad year but had millions in land and equipment were not eligible for food stamps. This appropriate asset test has effectively
been made moot by the expansion of a loophole called broad based categorical eligibility. Under this provision, applicants can be deemed categorically eligible as a
result of having received any TANF-funded service. This could be as little as having
received a brochure or an 800 number referral for social services. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has encouraged the use of categorical eligibility to increase
the asset limit or eliminate the asset test for eligibility. This is one reason that food
stamp enrollment has surged.
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
14
Federal Rules Lack Checks Against Improper Payments and Fraud
The program as federally administered has weakened efforts to ensure proper use
of funds. Face to face eligibility applications and reviews are no longer mandatory,
nor is there an emphasis on the fastest growing source of fraudby retailers diverting funds to the cash black economy. USDA rules preclude states from using their
own investigators to track down this enormous illegal diversion of funds. One of the
byproducts of the introduction of a food stamp work program is that it will significantly reduce the amount of funds going to otherwise employed recipients who cannot be in two places at once.
The Secretarys Innovation Group Recommends these fundamental reforms:
1. Food stamps should be converted to a fixed allocation with work requirements, conceptually similar to TANF, but with differences to match its differing
population and benefit structure. For cases with an able-bodied adult not working, an expectation of 30 hours of weekly work activity per family should be the
norm. The elderly and disabled should be exempt from work requirements, as
under current TANF law. Because of the recent explosive growth of the food
stamp population, work requirements would be phased in as budgets permit,
with TANF funds and employment infrastructure an eligible source for the operation of the state food stamp work program.
2. Work requirements under the proposed food stamp fixed allocation should be
non-waivable, comparable to a proper reading of current TANF law. Any reductions in Federal funding levels for states not operating a food stamp work program as required should be imposed within 24 months after the putative year
of non-compliance.
3. A states fixed allocation grant amount should be set at the level the state
receives at the time the program is converted to a fixed allocation. Shared ongoing savings from reductions in food stamp dependency over time would be allocated as follows:
For expenditures in subsequent years that exceed the base year, the Federal Government and state bear the cost of the increase equally.
For expenditures in subsequent years that are lower than the base year,
the Federal Government and state share the savings equally.
For expenditures below FFY 2008 levels, the state retains 100% of the savings.
4. States will submit an annual plan that must be accepted by the USDA if it
meets the following requirements:
States must incorporate a work program as described in paragraph 1 above.
States must incorporate robust up-front and ongoing eligibility tests, including an asset test.
States must incorporate rigorous detection and funds recapture provisions
for intentional program violations by individual recipients and commercial
retailers.
States must assure that food stamp funds are limited for the purchase of
nutritious food.
Adopting the Secretarys Innovation Group recommendations will activate
millions and reserve resources for those most in need.
A move of the food stamp program away from its current function as a straight
income transfer program into a temporary program for able bodied working-age recipients, while supporting only those most in need among the aged and disabled,
will re-balance it. As with TANF, states will use their fixed annual allocations to
maximize the impact of their resources dedicated to increasing work levels. It will
not be possible to engage all current non-working food stamp recipients in work levels comparably broad to TANF at the outset, but experience shows that work requirements phased in judiciously, first for new applicants, then for the rest as budget savings are realized, will have immediate constructive impacts on employment
and caseloads, and a longer term realignment of funds so as to support those most
in need.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Squier.

And the chair now recognizes Mr. Doar for his 5 minute testimony.
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
15
Mr. Doar.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT DOAR, MORGRIDGE FELLOW IN
POVERTY STUDIES, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. DOAR. Thank you, Chairman King, Ranking Member Fudge,

and other Members of the Committee. I greatly appreciate being invited to testify today about the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program. My name is Robert Doar, and I am the Morgridge Fellow
in Poverty Studies at the American Enterprise Institute.
Prior to joining AEI, I spent 18 years working in government social services programs for the State and City of New York. For
most of those years, I had significant responsibilities for the operation of the SNAP program.
And let me say first, SNAP plays an important role helping
struggling American families. The assistance it provides alleviates
material hardship, reduces poverty, and combats hunger among
poor children, the elderly, and the disabled. All Americans can be
proud of the enormous amount of relief SNAP provides to struggling Americans.
SNAP also can provide needed financial assistance to low-income
working families to make low wages go further. For a single mother with two children working full-time, SNAP can provide more
than $2,500 annually in assistance to purchase food. And when
combined with the Federal Earned Income Tax Credit and Child
Tax Credit, that assistance can make the effective compensation of
an $8 an hour job the equivalent of more than $11 per hour. And
if public health insurance or Medicaid is also provided and taken
into account, then you can see the way in which Americas generous assistance programs make low-wage work pay.
But SNAP is not perfect. And as someone who strongly endorsed
the work support aspect of the program while I was Commissioner
in New York City, I have been disturbed at the extent to which in
the past 10 years it has become a program that both supports
work, but when combined with other assistance programs appears
to also be discouraging work.
SNAP and some other assistance programs lack a strong work
requirement. And it appears from data provided by USDA that an
increasing number of non-elderly, non-disabled adults are not are
receiving SNAP benefits but are not reporting any earnings to the
SNAP offices.
This is troubling for two reasons. First, it raises the question,
how are these families getting by on only the aid provided by food
stamps, which was never intended to cover all of the needs of a
family? And second, shouldnt these recipients of government assistance at least be strongly encouraged to take part in an effort
to get them back to work where their incomes can rise more significantly?
If the goal of expanding SNAP access to the program was to
make SNAP more of a work support for low-income workers, then
the data should show more recipients reporting earnings to the
food stamp offices.
Another troubling aspect of the most recent past for the SNAP
program is the extent to which it is no longer as responsive to an
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
16
improving economy and lower unemployment as it once was. As the
chart in my testimony shows, the longstanding pattern of SNAP
going up with high unemployment and down with low unemployment seems to have been broken. So that now, 5 years after the
end of the recession the expected drop in SNAP use has not occurred as it has in the past.
In the 4 years following the recession of the early 1980s, during
which unemployment levels rivaled those in the most recent recession, the number of food stamp participants decreased by over two
million and food stamp participants as a percentage of the population dropped by over 1.5 percent.
The past 5 years have not followed this pattern of economic recovery. In the 4 years following the end of the downturn in 2009,
the number of SNAP recipients increased by 7.3 million. Moreover,
the percentage of population receiving food stamps increased from
13 percent to 15 percent.
Were this recent recovery to have behaved similarly to that of
the 1980s, by 2013 only 11.5 percent of the population would have
been receiving SNAP benefits, 36 million individuals, as opposed to
47.6 million individuals. That is not a small difference.
Now, there are all sorts of forces at work here. It could be that
the recovery is just too weak, and certainly that is part of the story
in many parts of the country. And some of the increase in recipients is due to households who have some work. But there is also
a component of this development which is caused by the combination of assistance programs which do not have a work requirement
contributing to a situation where the motivation to work at all has
been diminished or the motivation to work off the books has been
increased.
I am concerned about this, not because I am against helping poor
Americans buy food for themselves and their children, as my record
of promoting the Food Stamp Program in New York makes clear.
I have been a strong supporter of providing aid to people in need.
But I also want them to escape poverty. And assistance programs
that do not lead people into employment, but instead finance nonwork, will have one sure outcome: They will keep people poor.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Doar follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT DOAR, MORGRIDGE FELLOW IN POVERTY STUDIES,
AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, D.C.*
Does SNAP Support Work? Yes and No
Chairman King, Ranking Member Fudge, and other Members of the Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today before the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, and Nutrition of the House Committee on Agriculture.
I greatly appreciate being invited to discuss the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP) and its role, along with other government assistance programs, in
both alleviating poverty and supporting work for low-income Americans.
My name is Robert Doar and I am the Morgridge Fellow in Poverty Studies at
the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). Prior to joining AEI, I spent eighteen years
working in government social services programs for the State and City of New York.
From 2004 to 2006, I was Commissioner of the New York State Office of Temporary
and Disability Assistance where I was responsible for the oversight of SNAP as well
as other public assistance programs in New York State. For the 7 years directly be* The views expressed in this testimony are those of the author alone and do not necessarily
represent those of the American Enterprise Institute.
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
17
fore I joined AEI, I was the Commissioner of the New York City Human Resources
Administration and had the day to day operational responsibility of determining eligibility for SNAP. My extensive experience with the management of SNAP has
given me considerable insight into how the program is actually working for American familiesinsight which I would like to now share.
My testimony will address the following issues:
I. The importance of SNAP. SNAP provides needed resources to low income
Americans. SNAP benefits alleviate material hardship, reduce poverty and support employment.
II. The rapid growth of SNAP. The programs growth during the past 14
years has been both dramatic and unprecedented and can be attributed to both
a weak economy and significant programmatic changes.
III. The low responsiveness of SNAP to recent economic improvements.
Today, 5 years after the official end of the recession, the number of SNAP recipients has not fallen at the rate that would normally be expected in a postrecession period. In fact, SNAPs responsiveness to reduced unemployment
seems to have decreased significantly since 1980.
IV. Work and SNAP. While many SNAP recipients are working and using
SNAP benefits as an important work support, a remarkably high number of
nonelderly, nondisabled SNAP recipients are not reporting earnings from work
and are not facing any effective work requirement associated with SNAP.
V. The role of SNAP in the context of other public assistance programs.
SNAP does not operate alone in providing assistance to low income Americans.
For those SNAP recipients who are also receiving TANF funded cash assistance,
SNAP works in conjunction with a program which has a strong emphasis on
work requirements in return for assistance. For those who are disabled or elderly, SNAP provides needed additional assistance to very vulnerable individuals
and families. But for the very many SNAP individuals and households who are
not on TANF and who are not disabled or elderly, SNAP can, when combined
with other forms of government provided assistance, encourage a household to
place less emphasis on the importance of full-time employment than it should.
VI. Asset tests and the LIHEAP loophole. The widespread ending of an
asset test for SNAP is a mistake. Those decisions should be revisited, with the
goal of preventing people with significant assets from receiving SNAP benefits.
In addition, while Congress attempted to close the LIHEAP loophole, the extent
to which states have been able to continue to falsely characterize public housing
residents as being in need of LIHEAP assistance shows that, for some, programs such as SNAP are not about encouraging workand thereby reducing
povertybut about drawing down as much Federal aid as possible.
SNAP Growth Through the Recession
SNAP has experienced unprecedented growth in the 2000s. Today the program
serves 46.2 million peopledouble the number of participants from just 10 years
ago.1 This tremendous program expansion can be attributed to four main factors:
the negative economic consequences of the 200809 recession and a disappointingly
weak recovery; changes in program rules which have significantly eased program
entry; large growth in the number of recipients who are working; and promotional
efforts by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and others, which have encouraged use of the program.
I. The Recession
Lingering effects of the recent recession have only been exacerbated by the anemic
recovery of the labor force. The unemployment rate remains higher than in pre-recession years and as of 2012, 11.8 percent of all families in the United States were
living in poverty.23 Even those who are working are still struggling to make ends
meet as wages have not increased and part time work has grown.
In the wake of this increased need for supplemental aid for families and individuals, programs like SNAP have grown dramatically (see Figures 1 & 2). From 2000
1 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation and Costs, U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service. Accessed 14 July 2014, http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/SNAPsummary.pdf,
http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/29SNAP
currPP.pdf.
2 Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population, 1943 to date, Bureau of Labor
Statistics. Accessed 3 July 2014, http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat01.pdf.
3 Families in Poverty by Type of Family: 2011 and 2012, U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed 3 July
2014, http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2012/table4.pdf.
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
18
to 2013 the number of SNAP participants increased from fewer than 17.2 million
to more than 47.6 million individuals.4 In that same time period, total benefits paid
to participants increased fivefold.5 SNAP has supported families in and near poverty
through difficult economic times by alleviating their material hardship and reducing
their financial need.
Figure 1: SNAP Participants & the Poverty Rate, 20002012
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, USDA.
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
11318004.eps
4 Supplemental Nutrition Assistant Program Participation and Costs, U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service. Accessed 3 July 2014, http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/SNAPsummary.pdf.
5 Ibid.
19
Figure 2: SNAP Participants & the Unemployment Rate, 20002012
Sources: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, USDA.

II. Program Changes
At the same time, SNAP rules and requirements have been modified to enhance
program access. Altering asset and work requirements as well as recertification
timelines has contributed significantly to the increase in program participation.
With support from USDA, states have also reduced the requirement for face to face
eligibility interviews and promoted the use of telephone interviews and online applications. All of these changes make the eligibility rules of SNAP much different than
those for TANF.
The participation rate of eligible people in the U.S. increased from 55.7 percent
in 2000 to 79 percent in 2011.67 Many states had even higher participation rates:
Michigan and the District of Columbia both showed 99 percent participation, and
Maine, Oregon, and Washington all achieved 100 percent program participation
among all eligible individuals.8 Another similar and more recent measure of participation, the Program Access Index (PAI), the proportion of people below 125 percent
of the poverty line who receive SNAP benefits, shows a continuing increase in access
from 69 percent in 2010 to 74 percent in 2012.910
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
11318005.eps
6 A Users Guide to Measures of Food Stamp Program Participation Rates, Table 1, U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service. Accessed 3 July 2014, http://
www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/ParticipationUsersGuide.pdf.
7 Reaching Those in Need: State supplemental nutrition assistance program participation rates
in 2011, U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service. Accessed 3 July 2014,
http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/Reaching2011.pdf.
8 Ibid.
9 Calculating the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Program Access Index:
A Step-by-Step Guide for 2010, United States Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition
Service, Office of Policy Support. Accessed 15 July 2014, http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/PAI2010.pdf.
10 Calculating the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Program Access Index:
A Step-by-Step Guide for 2012, United States Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition
Service, Office of Policy Support. Accessed 15 July 2014, http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/PAI2012.pdf.
20
III. Growth of the Working Population
Partly as a result of changes intended to make the program easier to navigate
for low wage workers, the number of working SNAP recipients has increased by 4.6
million since 2000.11
This could be seen as a positive development that shows that the program has
evolved to be a source of supplemental income for working families. In New York
City for example, we encouraged the use of the program for low wage workers in
order to help them make their earnings go farther. During my time as welfare commissioner of New York City, the number of SNAP recipients living in households
which did not receive benefits from TANF or SSI grew by 500,000. This remarkable
growth was used to demonstrate the extent to which the program had become a significant work support.
IV. Promotion by the USDA
In an effort to increase accessibility to the program and remove any existing social
stigmas associated with program participation, the USDA has revitalized the programs image. Changes have included changing the program name and promoting
it as a positive resource rather than an indicator of need. The USDA and others
have also expanded outreach efforts. This encouragement of the use of SNAP has
contributed to increased participation.
All of these forces have culminated in a massive increase in aid being distributed
through SNAP. From 2000 to 2013, the amount of total benefits distributed to program participants jumped from less than $15 billion to over $76 billion.12 Over that
same time period the average benefits paid out to each person nearly doubled from
$72.62 to $133.07.13
In all, SNAP has been an extremely responsive tool to combat the economic downturn and has provided substantial assistance to low income Americans. SNAP enables low wages to go farther and has played an integral role in the fight to reduce
poverty. Studies such as one by Tiehan, Jolliffe & Smeeding for the Institute for Research on Poverty have shown that SNAP decreases poverty by as much as 16 percent, and cuts extreme poverty in half, making it an extremely effective antipoverty
program.14 In 2011 alone SNAP helped 3.7 million people out of poverty, 3.4 million
out of deep poverty, and lowered the poverty rate by eight percentage points.15 The
positive effect of SNAP can also be seen in studies of poverty using consumption
measures where the extent and severity of poverty is shown to be significantly lower
than measures which focus on income.
Given the enormous growth of SNAP as a response to the recession, two important questions emerge: First, why, now that the economy has begun to strengthen,
is the number of recipients not dropping faster? Second, have efforts to increase
SNAPs reach and impact allowed for too much non-work among able recipients?
Slow Decline in Participation Post-Recession
Today, 5 years after the end of the recession, the number of SNAP participants
and the amount of benefits paid are just beginning to decline. From April 2013 to
April 2014 there was a 2.7% decrease in participants and an 8.4% drop in total benefits paid.16 Given the substantial increase in the number of recipients of SNAP,
these decreases are remarkably modest: the number of participants increased by as
much as seven million a year immediately following the recession, while the past
year has shown a decrease of only 1.3 million.1718
11 USDA Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Households, U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service. Accessed 18 July 2014, http://
www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2000Characteristics.pdf, http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/
default/files/2012Characteristics.pdf.
12 Supplemental Nutrition Assistant Program Participation and Costs, U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service. Accessed 3 July 2014, http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/SNAPsummary.pdf.
13 Ibid.
14 Tiehen, Laura; Jolliffe, Dean; Smeeding, Timothy. The Effect of SNAP on Poverty, Institute
for Research on Poverty, Working Paper No. 141513. 28 October 2013.
15 Ibid.
16 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service. Accessed 14 July 2014, http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap.
17 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation and Costs, U.S. Department of
Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service. Accessed 14 July 2014, http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/
default/files/pd/SNAPsummary.pdf.
18 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service. Accessed 14 July 2014, http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap.
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
21
In fact, looking at the years following this most recent recession in comparison
to the years following previous downturns, it is apparent that SNAP is responding
differently than it has in the past (see Figure 3). In the 4 years following the recession of the early 1980s, during which unemployment levels rivaled those of the most
recent recession, the number of food stamp participants decreased by over two million and food stamps participants as a percentage of the population dropped by over
1.5 percent from the beginning of the recession.19 Similarly, in the 4 years following
the recession of the early 1990s, the number of participants remained fairly constant after adjusting for population.
The past 5 years have not followed this pattern of economic recovery. In the 4
years following the end of the downturn in 2009, the number of SNAP recipients
increased by 7.3 million.20 Moreover, the percentage of the population receiving food
stamps increased from 13 percent to 15 percent. To give perspective on this number,
we can compare the recent recovery with the recovery after the recession of the
1980s, whose duration and unemployment levels are most comparable. Adjusting
for population, in the 4 years following the 198182 recession, there was a 12.5 percent decline in food stamp recipients. In the 4 years following the 200709 recession,
SNAP recipients increased by 15.6 percent. Were this recent recovery to have behaved similarly to that of the 1980s, by 2013 only 11.5 percent of the population
would have been receiving SNAP benefits: 36 million individuals as opposed to 47.6
million.21 That is not a small difference.
Figure 3: SNAP Trends Through Recessions, 19692013
Sources: USDA, BLS, NBER, Census Bureau.

Work Requirements Among Able Adults
While the SNAP working population has grown, there are many individuals receiving SNAP benefits who are not working or at least not reporting earnings to
SNAP eligibility offices. Under recent program changes, the process of applying has
become less rigorous, and while this has expanded the program to meet the needs
of many Americans, it has also opened the door for many non-workers and off-thebook workers, to receive SNAP benefits without facing any effort to help them get
into regular employment.
19 AEI
calculations using USDA, BLS, NBER, and Census Bureau data.

calculations using USDA, BLS, NBER, and Census Bureau data.
calculations using USDA, BLS, NBER, and Census Bureau data. To obtain the 35 million individuals in 2013 the percent change in population on SNAP from 198386 was applied
to the portion of the population on SNAP in 2013.
20 AEI
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
11318006.eps
21 AEI
22
From 2008 to 2012 the number of nonelderly, nondisabled SNAP recipients who
were not reporting earnings ballooned from five million (18 percent of SNAP recipients) to over 10.6 million (23 percent).2223 As of 2012, almost half of these individuals were not even participating in the labor force.
Figure 4: Nonelderly Adult Participants by Work Status, 20082012 24
AEI Calculations using USDA data for years 20082012.
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
11318007.eps
22 USDA Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Households: Fiscal

Year 2008, U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service. Accessed 14 July 2014,
http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2008Characteristics.pdf.
Year 2012, U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service. Accessed 14 July 2014,
http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2012Characteristics.pdf.
24 The number of nondisabled, nonelderly and nonworking was derived from the Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Households for Fiscal Years 2008 to 2012.
A summation of nonelderly adults not in the labor force and not looking for work, minus those
exempt for disability, and nonelderly unemployed adults looking for work yields the total number of presumably able-bodied nonelderly persons who are not working. This number is an estimate, as it does not account for the possibility that some of these recipients may be working
off-the-books, be otherwise incapable of work, or have other motivations for non-work.
23
Figure 5: Employment Status Among Nonelderly Adult SNAP Participants,
2012
Source: USDA Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year 2012.
Figure 7: SNAP Participants

Work Trends, 2002
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
11318008.eps
11318009.eps
Figure 6: SNAP Participant

Work Trends, 1998
24
Figure 8: SNAP Participant
Work Trends, 2008
Figure 9: SNAP Participants

Work Trends, 2012
This number, which includes some recipients who are also on TANF, and others
who are receiving unemployment insurance benefits, has doubled through the recession and this growth far exceeds that of working SNAP participants. While there
may be some explanation for some of this non-work status (individuals in the process of applying for disability status for instance, or going through a short spell of
unemployment), the growth in this number is troubling. SNAP benefits are not intended to satisfy a households needs beyond supplementing an existing income to
provide for food. Helping these individuals gain employment would greatly strengthen the economic situation of their households.
Another group over which we need to be concerned is Able-Bodied Adults Without
Dependents (ABAWDs). In 2012, only 1.5 million out of 5.5 million households not
containing children, elderly or disabled individuals reported earned income.25 Additionally, out of approximately 4.4 million childless households containing at least
one nondisabled adult, only 1.2 million reported earned income.26 Only a little more
than a quarter of these able and childless adults is working.
To achieve the goal of labor market integration for all of these able bodied adult
recipients, we must examine what we can do to facilitate, motivate, and require
work. My experience at both the state and local levels has led me to believe that
the best way to move individuals receiving public assistance into employment is to
send a strong message that work is both expected and required for those who are
able.
One of the most significant effects following the implementation the welfare reform legislation was the large number of AFDC recipients who declined to pursue
cash assistance when they were asked to participate in regular activities associated
with receiving assistance. The clear conclusion which I and many others reached
was that these former AFDC recipients were already working in some capacity but
not in on-the-books employment. Further study on this issue is needed but it is clear
to me that at least some of the apparent non-work of SNAP recipients can be attributed to recipients who are engaged in the off-the-books economy and are also able
to apply for and receive SNAP benefits.
SNAP Does Not Operate Alone
SNAP is not the only program that acts as a support for working families. The
Earned Income Tax Credit, public health insurance, child care assistance, child support collections and other programs all canwhen working correctlyhelp to make
work more attractive than welfare for low wage workers living in households with
children. As the charts below show, by using just three Federal programs, EITC,
SNAP and Medicaid, a single mother or father can gross up an $8 an hour job.
A single parent working for $8 an hour but working only half-time can also make
her wages go significantly farther by applying for and receiving aid.
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
11318010.eps

Year 2012, Table A.16. U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service. Accessed
14 July 2014, http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2012Characteristics.pdf.
26 Ibid.
25
Estimated Value of Wages and Select Federal Benefits for a Low-Income
Earner With Two Children Working Full Time at $8/hr = $30,204
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
11318011.eps
11318012.eps
Estimated Value of Wages and Select Federal Benefits for a Single Mom
With One Child Working Half-Time at $8/hr = $19,251
26
However, while these supports for working people clearly reward work, they
may also replace work, especially when multiple supports are combined with each
other. At the very least, this combination of assistance can reduce the incentive for
someone to increase their hours, or take regular on-the-book employment. My experience in New Yorkwhere many, many residents asked for and received SNAP and
Medicaid, but declined TANF (and its accompanying work requirements and employment assistance), and yet still reported to our offices very low earnings, led me
to believe that the issue of well-intentioned work supports potentially reducing onthe-book employment needs to be studied.
Asset Testing and the LIHEAP Loophole
The use of broad-based categorical eligibility to allow SNAP programs to waive
the asset test has been a mistake. That is not to say that we should return to the
old and insufficient asset test. A limit of $10,000 in assets (not including primary
residence and a car) seems to me to be appropriate. I say this for two reasons: first,
by refusing to allow SNAP offices to investigate assets, applicants who have assets
are able to avoid declaring them. This encourages people who do not want to lie on
a government form to take advantage of the program and apply for assistance they
do not really need. Second, a central principle of government assistance for the poor
should be that applicants and recipients should be encouraged to first use their own
resources and efforts to help themselves and their families before they turn to government. Ending the asset test has encouraged abuse, and discouraged personal responsibility.
Residents of public housing often do not have utility expenses billed directly to
them. Those costs are supported by the rent they pay and the subsidy they receive
to keep their rent low. These same residents may also be in need of SNAP assistance, which they should be able to receive. However, to artificially increase the
amount of their SNAP benefit by suggesting that they have burdensome utility expenses when, in reality, they do not, is a gimmick that is unfair to both the SNAP
program and the thousands of LIHEAP recipients who do have utility expenses
which are only partially offset by LIHEAP assistance. By continuing to exploit the
LIHEAP loophole, states are showing that they are more interested in drawing
down maximum federal dollars than they are in running programs that promote
work and provide properly tailored assistance to people in need.
Conclusion
Our nations Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program provides important assistance to needy Americans. SNAP alleviates material hardship, reduces poverty,
helps the elderly and disabled, and provides needed food to children in low income
families. By supplementing low wages, SNAP can encourage and sustain work while
discouraging the use of cash welfare.
Despite these positive aspects of SNAP, my experience with the program during
the past 10 years, especially during the period following the 200809 recession,
leads me to believe that some efforts to promote the use of SNAP may have reduced
the work support aspect of the program. By itself, SNAP benefits may not be enough
to reduce the incentive for a recipient to go to work, or to move from part-time to
full-time regular employment, but when combined with unreported earnings or
other assistance programsperhaps most notably unemployment insurance benefitsthe program does appear to allow a significant number of adult recipients to
remain out of work longer than they might otherwise. Without some effort to require these SNAP recipients to participate in employment programs such as those
offered under TANF, I fear that the number of non-working, nonelderly, nondisabled
SNAP recipients will remain high. This will contribute to slower economic growth
but more important, it will keep these families poor.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you Mr. Doar.

I now recognize Ms. Dean for her 5 minute testimony.
Ms. Dean.
STATEMENT OF STACY DEAN, VICE PRESIDENT FOR FOOD
ASSISTANCE POLICY, CENTER ON BUDGET AND POLICY
PRIORITIES, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Ms. DEAN. Chairman King, Ranking Member Fudge, thank you

for the opportunity to testify today. I am Stacy Dean, the Vice
President for Food Assistance Policy at the Center on Budget and
Policy Priorities, a nonpartisan policy institute.
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
27
I am pleased to have the opportunity to talk to you about SNAP
today and SNAPs relationship to other programs. SNAP is designed to provide a basic nutrition benefit to low-income families,
seniors, and people with disabilities who cannot afford an adequate
diet.
Today, the program helps feed more than 46 million people, including 21 million children and nine million children living with
family income below 12 the poverty line. While the program is not
perfect, as Mr. Doar points out, it does an admirable job of meeting
its core purpose of providing food assistance to needy households.
Moreover, recent research indicates SNAPs benefits arent limited to providing relief from just poverty and hunger. SNAP also
improves the long-term outcomes and self-sufficiency for individuals who received its benefits as children. For example, one of the
most striking findings is that participation in SNAP as a young
child improved high school completion rates by 18 percent. So although Ranking Member Fudge stole some of my thunder, I would
like to highlight some of the programs key strengths.
SNAP is highly responsive to need. It is an entitlement, meaning
that anyone who qualifies can receive its benefits. This is the programs most powerful feature. It enables SNAP to respond quickly
and effectively during times of economic distress. Enrollment does
expand when the economy weakens and it contracts when the economy recovers.
After growing substantially in response to the great recession
and the subsequent slow recovery, SNAP costs have started falling
and are expected to fall further. In April 2014, which represents
the most recent data that we have, 1.5 million fewer people were
on the program than when participation peaked in 2012. And CBO
projects that by 2019 SNAP will return to its pre-recession spending levels as a share of the economy.
Second, SNAP growth was not a result of waste or fraud. SNAP
has an impressive track record with respect to program integrity.
The share of SNAP payments issued to ineligible households in
2013 was less than one percent. And moreover, SNAPs efforts to
measure and cut errors really set the standard across government
programs.
SNAP is a powerful antipoverty program. While benefits are
modest, just $1.40 per person, per meal, they do have a big impact.
SNAP lifted about nearly five million Americans above the poverty
line in 2012, including 2.2 million children.
And SNAP is an important work support. The number of low-income working households on SNAP has risen dramatically. While
only about 28 percent of families with an able-bodied adult had
earnings in 1990, 55 percent of those families were working in
2012. Most SNAP recipients who can work do, turning to SNAP
temporarily when they lose employment. So when you look at before and after their participation in SNAP, more than 80 percent
of households with at least one working-age nondisabled adult
work in the year prior to or after receiving SNAP.
So let me quickly pivot to SNAPs relationship to other programs.
Of course people cannot survive on SNAP benefits alone. Many people whose circumstances qualify them for SNAP also meet other
programs eligibility criteria. Working families with children who
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
28
participate in SNAP may also, for example, receive child care subsidies, and the majority of SNAP recipients qualify for health coverage either under Medicaid or Medicare. And as such, State Administrators, like Mr. Doar and Secretary Squier, work to coordinate SNAPs delivery and program rules with other programs when
appropriate.
There are many cross-program coordination issues, so let me just
highlight one for you. Other programs can and do rely upon
SNAPs rigorous assessment of household financial circumstances.
This can result in more efficient application and enrollment systems, as well as be the means to connect people to benefits that
can help them beyond SNAP.
Moreover, because SNAPs assessment is so robust, its information can actually increase the quality and program integrity in
other programs. For example, Medicaid can rely upon verified information in the SNAP program, rather than reassessing and reworking the same information.
The School Meals Program adopts SNAPs determination of eligibility for children to qualify them for the Free School Meals Programs, rather than asking schools to replicate that effort.
So to be sure, few state officials want to replicate SNAPs very
high and prescriptive standards for eligibility and administration.
Many however, are willing to use SNAPs determinations to create
efficiencies for other programs.
Of course, we should all work to find ways to improve SNAP, and
I think todays discussion will be an important contribution to that
effort. But I really encourage the Committee to reject proposals
that would weaken the programs ability to provide food assistance
or to experiment with ideas that risk compromising the programs
proven success.
So thank you. I would be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Dean follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF STACY DEAN, VICE PRESIDENT FOR FOOD ASSISTANCE
POLICY, CENTER ON BUDGET AND POLICY PRIORITIES, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am Stacy Dean, Vice President
for Food Assistance Policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, an independent, nonprofit, nonpartisan policy institute located here in Washington. The
Center conducts research and analysis on a range of Federal and state policy issues
affecting low- and moderate-income families. The Centers food assistance work focuses on improving the effectiveness of the major Federal nutrition programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). I also lead our
work on program integration and efforts to facilitate and streamline low-income peoples enrollment into the package of benefits for which they are eligible. This includes directing technical assistance to state officials through the Work Support
Strategies Initiative run by the Urban Institute and the Center for Law and Social
Policy. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities receives no government funding.
My testimony today focuses on SNAPs relationship to other Federal programs.1
SNAP is highly responsive to other Federal assistance programs in the way that it
assesses eligibility and benefit levels. This ensures that its benefits are targeted to
those who struggle the most to afford a nutritious diet. And, other programs are
keenly aware of SNAPs ability to scrutinize the financial circumstances of low-income households. As a result, numerous programs rely upon SNAPs determinations
of eligibility and assessment of individual circumstances when setting their own eligibility rules and procedures. Moreover, SNAP is a significant program with a broad
1 My testimony draws upon the work of my colleagues at the Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities, particularly Dorothy Rosenbaum.
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
29
reach and high and proscribed standards for how benefits must be processed. As a
result, SNAP is a highly influential program as states seek to coordinate the delivery of health and human services across many programs.
My testimony will focus on four areas:
SNAP is a very effective program that alleviates poverty and hunger as well
as improves its participants long-term outcomes.
States and USDA operate SNAP very efficiently and with a high degree of accuracy in addition to the programs rigorous eligibility assessment of participants.
SNAPs benefit calculation is very sensitive to households receipt of other assistance programs, ensuring that benefits are targeted to those that struggle the
most to afford an adequate diet.
Other programs benefit from SNAPs robust and high-quality eligibility determination process. SNAP participation and the verified data used in a SNAP eligibility determination can be and is used by other programs to streamline their
own eligibility and enrollment processes.
SNAP Plays a Critical Role in Our Country
Before turning to todays hearing topic of the role SNAP plays in other Federal
assistance programs, I think it is important to review some of SNAPs most critical
features. As of April of this year, SNAP was helping more than 46 million low-income Americans to afford a nutritionally adequate diet by providing them with benefits via a debit card that can be used only to purchase food. On average, SNAP
recipients receive about $1.40 per person per meal in food benefits. One in seven
Americans is participating in SNAPa figure that speaks both to the extensive
need across our country and to SNAPs important role in addressing it.
Policymakers created SNAP to help low-income families and individuals purchase
an adequate diet. It does an admirable job of providing poor households with basic
nutritional support and has largely eliminated severe hunger and malnutrition in
the United States.
When the program was first established, hunger and malnutrition were much
more serious problems in this country than they are today. A team of Field Foundation-sponsored doctors who examined hunger and malnutrition among poor children
in the South, Appalachia, and other very poor areas in 1967 (before the Food Stamp
Program was widespread in these areas) and again in the late 1970s (after the program had been instituted nationwide) found marked reductions over this 10 year period in serious nutrition-related problems among children. The doctors attributed a
significant part of this reduction to the Food Stamp Program (as the program was
then named). Findings such as this led then-Senator Robert Dole to describe the
Food Stamp Program as the most important advance in the nations social programs
since the creation of Social Security.
Consistent with its original purpose, SNAP continues to provide a basic nutrition
benefit to low-income families, elderly, and people with disabilities who cannot afford an adequate diet. In some ways, particularly in its administration, todays program is stronger than at any previous point. By taking advantage of modern technology and business practices, SNAP has become substantially more efficient, accurate, and effective. While many low-income Americans continue to struggle, this
would be a very different country without SNAP.
SNAP Protects Families From Hardship and Hunger
SNAP benefits are an entitlement, which means that anyone who qualifies under
the programs rules can receive benefits. This is the programs most powerful feature; it enables SNAP to respond quickly and effectively to support low-income families and communities during times of economic downturn and increased need. Enrollment expands when the economy weakens and contracts when the economy recovers.
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
30
Figure 1
SNAP Caseloads Closely Track Changes in Number of Poor and Near-Poor
* Poverty numbers are annual estimates and not yet available after 2012.
Spikes in SNAP participants are from disaster benefits (i.e., after hurricanes).
Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture (SNAP Program Participants);
U.S. Census Bureau (annual estimates of individuals below 130% of poverty).
As a result, SNAP can respond immediately to help families and to bridge temporary periods of unemployment or a family crisis. If a parent loses her job, SNAP
can help her feed her children until she is able to improve her circumstances. A U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) study of SNAP participation over the mid-2000s
found that more than half of all new entrants to SNAP participated for less than
1 year and then left the program when their immediate need passed.
SNAPs ability to serve as an automatic responder is also important when natural
disasters strike. States can provide emergency SNAP within a matter of days to
help disaster victims purchase food. After the 2005 hurricanes, for example, SNAP
provided more than two million households with almost $1 billion in temporary food
assistance. In 2013, SNAP helped households affected by Hurricanes Isaac and
Sandy, tornadoes in Oklahoma, and flooding in Colorado, and in 2014 it has helped
households in the Southeast affected by severe storms.
SNAPs caseloads grew in recent years primarily because more households qualified for SNAP because of the recession, and because more eligible households applied for help. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has confirmed that the primary reason for the increase in the number of participants was the deep recession . . . and subsequent slow recovery; there were no significant legislative expansions of eligibility. 2
While this increase in participation and spending was substantial, SNAP participation and spending have begun to decline as the economic recovery has begun to
reach low-income SNAP participants. In 2013, SNAP growth began to stabilize, and
by April 2014, the number of SNAP participants had fallen by 1.5 million since the
peak of SNAP participation in December 2012. SNAP spending is also falling. In November 2013, a temporary benefit boost that was part of the 2009 Recovery Act
ended, and as a result, SNAP spending on benefits will fall by about $5 billion in
Fiscal Year 2014. Over the first 9 months of Fiscal Year 2014 (October 2013 through
June 2014), SNAP outlays were seven percent lower than the same period of Fiscal
Year 2013 on a nominal basis. CBO predicts that this trend will continue, and that
SNAP spending as a share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) will fall to its 1995
levels by 2019.
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
11318013.eps
2 Congressional Budget Office, The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, April 2012,
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/04-19-SNAP.pdf.
31
SNAP Lessens the Extent and Severity of Poverty and Unemployment
Figure 2
Two-Fifths of SNAP Households Are Below Half the Poverty Line
Source: USDA Household Characteristics Data, FY 2011.
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
11318014.eps
SNAP targets benefits on those most in need and least able to afford an adequate
diet. Its benefit formula considers a households income level as well as its essential
expenses, such as rent, medicine, and child care. Although a familys total income
is the most important factor affecting its ability to purchase food, it is not the only
factor. For example, a family spending 23 of its income on rent and utilities will
have less money to buy food than a family that has the same income but lives in
public or subsidized housing.
While the targeting of benefits adds some complexity to the program, it helps ensure that SNAP provides the most assistance to the poorest families with the greatest needs.
These features make SNAP a powerful tool in fighting poverty. A CBPP analysis
using the governments Supplemental Poverty Measure, which counts SNAP as income, found that SNAP kept 4.9 million people out of poverty in 2012, including 2.2
million children. SNAP lifted 1.4 million children above 50 percent of the poverty
line in 2012, more than any other benefit program.
SNAP is also effective in reducing extreme poverty. A recent study by the National
Poverty Center estimated the number of U.S. households living on less than $2 per
person per day, a classification of poverty that the World Bank uses for developing
nations. The study found that counting SNAP benefits as income cut the number
of extremely poor households in 2011 by nearly 12 (from 1.6 million to 857,000) and
cut the number of extremely poor children by more than half (from 3.6 million to
1.2 million).
SNAP is able to achieve these results because it is so targeted at very low-income
households. Over 91 percent of SNAP benefits go to households with incomes below
the poverty line, and 55 percent goes to households with incomes below 12 of the
poverty line (about $9,895 for a family of three in 2014).
During the deep and prolonged recession and weak recovery, SNAP has become
increasingly valuable for the long-term unemployed as it is one of the few resources
available for jobless workers who have exhausted their unemployment benefits. In
2010, according to the Joint Economic Committee, over 20 percent of those who had
been unemployed for more than 6 months received SNAP benefits. Nearly 25 percent of households in which someones unemployment benefits ended were enrolled
in SNAP.
32
Figure 3
SNAP Cuts Extreme Poverty Almost in Half
Source: Shaefer and Edin, Rising Extreme Poverty in the United States
and the Response of Federal Means-Tested Transfer Programs, National
Poverty Center, University of Michigan, May 2013.
SNAP also protects the economy as a whole by helping to maintain overall demand for food during slow economic periods. In fact, SNAP benefits are one of the
fastest, most effective forms of economic stimulus because they get money into the
economy quickly. Moodys Analytics estimates that in a weak economy, every $1 increase in SNAP benefits generates about $1.70 in economic activity. Similarly, CBO
has found that SNAP has one of the largest bangs-for-the-buck (i.e., increase in
economic activity and employment per budgetary dollar spent) among a broad range
of policies for stimulating economic growth and creating jobs in a weak economy.
SNAP Improves Long-term Health and Self-sufficiency
Figure 4
Children With Access to Food Stamps Fare Better Years Later
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
11318015.eps
11318016.eps
Source: Hoynes, Schanzenbach, and Almond, Long Run Impacts of Childhood Access to the Safety Net, National Bureau of Economic Research, November 2012.
33
While reducing hunger and food insecurity and lifting millions out of poverty in
the short run, SNAP also brings important long-run benefits. Programs that help
poor families with children afford the basics may help improve longer-term outcomes for children by reducing the added stress that parents or children may experience if they cannot pay their bills or do not know there will be food on the table.
While researchers are only starting to explore the relationship between safety net
programs and toxic stress and its long-term consequences, the early findings are
striking.
A recent National Bureau of Economic Research study examined what happened
when government introduced food stamps in the 1960s and early 1970s and concluded that children who had access to food stamps in early childhood and whose
mothers had access during their pregnancy had better health outcomes as adults
years later, compared with children born at the same time in counties that had not
yet implemented the program. Along with lower rates of metabolic syndrome (obesity, high blood pressure, heart disease, and diabetes), adults who had access to food
stamps as young children reported better health, and women who had access to food
stamps as young children reported improved economic self-sufficiency (as measured
by employment, income, poverty status, high school graduation, and program participation).3
Supporting and Encouraging Work
Figure 5
Work Rates Have Risen, Especially Among Households With Children and
Adults Who Could Be Expected to Work
Source: CBPP tabulations of USDA Household Characteristics data

In addition to acting as a safety net for people who are elderly, disabled, or temporarily unemployed, SNAP is designed to supplement the wages of low-income workers.
The number of SNAP households that have earnings while participating in SNAP
has more than tripledfrom about two million in 2000 to about 6.9 million in 2012.
The share of SNAP families that are working has also been risingwhile only about
28 percent of families with an able-bodied adult had earnings in 1990, 55 percent
of those families were working in 2012. The increase was especially pronounced during the recent deep recession, suggesting that many people have turned to SNAP
because of under-employmentfor example, when one wage earner in a two-parent
family lost a job, when a workers hours were cut, or when a worker turned to a
lower-paying job after being laid off.
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
11318017.eps
3 Hilary W. Hoynes, Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, and Douglas Almond, Long Run Impacts
of Childhood Access to the Safety Net, National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper
18535, 2012, www.nber.org/papers/w18535.
34
Figure 6
SNAP Households With Working-Age Non-Disabled Adults Have High Work
Rates
Source: CBPP calculations based on 2004 SIPP Panel data.

SNAP benefits help low-wage working families make ends meet. For a family of
three with one wage earner who works at $10 an hour, SNAP increases the familys
take-home income by roughly ten percent to 20 percent, depending on the number
of hours worked.
In addition, the SNAP benefit formula contains an important work incentive. For
every additional dollar a SNAP recipient earns, her benefits decline by only 24 to
36much less than in most other programs. Families that receive SNAP thus have
a strong incentive to work longer hours or to search for better-paying employment.
States further support work through the SNAP Employment and Training program,
which funds training and work activities for unemployed adults who receive SNAP.
Most SNAP recipients who can work do so. Among SNAP households with at least
one working-age, non-disabled adult, more than half work while receiving SNAP
and more than 80 percent work in the year prior to or the year after receiving
SNAP. The rates are even higher for families with children. (Almost 70 percent of
SNAP recipients are not expected to work, primarily because they are children, elderly, or disabled.)
SNAP Supports Healthy Eating
While Ive focused so far primarily on SNAPs role in reducing poverty, responding
to downturns, and supporting work, we should not forget that SNAP enables lowincome households to afford a healthier diet. Because SNAP benefits can be spent
only on food, they raise families food purchases more than an equivalent amount
of cash assistance would. Fruits and vegetables, grain products, meats, and dairy
products comprise almost 90 percent of the food that SNAP households buy. In addition, all states operate SNAP nutrition education programs to help participants
make healthy food choices.
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
11318018.eps
Strong Program Integrity

SNAP has one of the most rigorous payment error measurement systems of any
public benefit program. Each year states take a representative sample of SNAP
cases (totaling about 50,000 cases nationally) and thoroughly review the accuracy
of their eligibility and benefit decisions. Federal officials re-review a subsample of
the cases to ensure accuracy in the error rates. States are subject to fiscal penalties
if their error rates are persistently higher than the national average.
35
Figure 7
SNAP Error Rates Are at an All-Time Low
Source: Quality Control Branch, U.S. Food and Nutrition Service.

The percentage of SNAP benefit dollars issued to ineligible households or to eligible households in excessive amounts fell for the seventh consecutive year in 2013
to 2.61 percent, newly released USDA data show. Thats the lowest national overpayment rate since USDA began the current system of measuring error rates in
1981. The underpayment error rate fell to 0.6 percent, also the lowest on record.
The combined payment error ratethat is, the sum of the overpayment and underpayment error ratesfell to an all-time low of 3.2 percent.4 Less than one percent
of SNAP benefits go to households that are ineligible. In other words, more than
99 percent of SNAP benefits are issued to eligible households.
If one subtracts underpayments (which reduce Federal costs) from overpayments,
the net loss to the government last year from errors was about two percent of benefits.
In comparison, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) estimates a tax noncompliance
rate of 16.9 percent in 2006 (the most recently studied year). This represents a $450
billion loss to the Federal Government in 1 year. Underreporting of business income
alone cost the Federal Government $122 billion in 2006, and small businesses report
less than 12 of their income.5
The overwhelming majority of SNAP errors that do occur result from mistakes by
recipients, eligibility workers, data entry clerks, or computer programmers, not dishonesty or fraud by recipients. In addition, states have reported that almost 60 percent of the dollar value of overpayments and almost 90 percent of the dollar value
of underpayments were their fault, rather than recipients fault. Much of the rest
of overpayments resulted from innocent errors by households facing a program with
complex rules.
4 See
the Fiscal Year 2013 error rates: http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/quality-control.

both SNAP and taxes the figures represent gross estimates (i.e., before SNAP households
repay overpayments, taxpayers make voluntary late payments, or consideration of IRS enforcement activities.) The net costs are somewhat lower. See: Internal Revenue Service, Tax Gap
for Tax Year 2006, Overview, January 6, 2012, http://www.irs.gov/pub/newsroom/overview_tax_gap_2006.pdf.
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
11318019.eps
5 For
36
Figure 8
92 Percent of Federal SNAP Spending Is for Benefits
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fiscal Year 2013

Finally, SNAP has low administrative overhead. About 92 percent of Federal
SNAP spending goes to providing benefits to households for purchasing food. Of the
remaining eight percent, about five percent was used for state administrative costs,
including eligibility determinations, employment and training and nutrition education for SNAP households, and anti-fraud activities. About three percent went for
other food assistance programs, such as the block grant for food assistance in Puerto
Rico and American Samoa, commodity purchases for the Emergency Food Assistance
Program (which helps food pantries and soup kitchens across the country), and commodities for the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations.
SNAPs Relationship With Other Programs
Now that I have reviewed some of SNAPs most critical features, Ill discuss how
SNAP is influenced by and influences other programs. Ill focus on two aspects of
how SNAP relates to other Federal assistance programs:
One, SNAPs benefit structure is highly responsive to other forms of assistance
that households may receive; and
Two, SNAP is a part of a larger health and human services system, and state
administrators work to coordinate its delivery and program rules with other
programs where appropriate. Other programs can rely upon SNAPs rigorous
and high-quality assessment of a households financial circumstances. These efforts can result in far more efficient application and enrollment systems as well
as be the means to connect struggling families and seniors seamless to the benefits that can help them. Moreover, because SNAPs assessment of eligibility is
robust, using its eligibility determination or verified information can increase
program integrity and accountability in other programs.
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
11318020.eps
SNAPs Benefit Design Is Highly Responsive to Other Federal Assistance

Programs
Of course, people cannot survive solely on SNAP benefits alone. Many individuals
and families whose circumstances qualify them for SNAP also meet the eligibility
criteria for other programs. SNAPs low-income senior population typically has income from Social Security or Supplemental Social Security (SSI) benefits. Unemployed individuals may combine SNAP with unemployment insurance benefits to
cover their monthly expenses. Working families with children who participate in
SNAP may also receive subsidies to cover their child care costs from the limited
funding of the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDF). Because SNAP
is the program of last resort, it calculates food assistance benefit levels to households after capturing their available income to purchase food (while no other program may count SNAP as income). This approach enables it to wrap around the
benefits of other safety net programs and to help fill in many of the gaps. SNAP
targets its benefits to the households that have the fewest resources available to afford an adequate diet. Several features set SNAP apart among programs:
Its national benefit structure is responsive to other programs. Unlike
many other benefit programs, which are restricted to particular categories of lowincome individuals (such as senior citizens, people with disabilities, families with
37
children, veterans, or people who recently became unemployed), SNAP is broadly
available to almost all households with low incomes. SNAP eligibility rules and benefit levels are, for the most part, set at the Federal level and uniform across the
nation. These SNAP features ensure that poor families have adequate nutritional
resources regardless of where they live. The amount of a familys SNAP benefits depend on its income, and as a result, SNAP benefits tend to be higher in states with
below-average wages and cash assistance benefits. The program narrows disparities
between low-income families and communities in poorer states and those in more
affluent states. This aspect of SNAP is especially important to southern states and
rural areas, where wages (as well as cash assistance benefits) tend to be lower. For
example, cash assistance benefits for families with children that have no other income are about four times higher in states that make the highest cash assistance
payments than in the lowest-payment states. When SNAP benefits are added in,
this disparity narrows to less than 2-to-1.
It reflects other programs income to households. SNAP counts cash income
from all sources, including earnings from a job as well as unearned income, such
as cash assistance, Social Security, unemployment insurance, and child support.
Thus, households that qualify for and receive benefits from other Federal or state
programs receive lower SNAP benefits than households that have no other cash income available to purchase food. This helps to ensure, for example, that a family
with a single parent who loses her job and cannot find a new job before her unemployment insurance ends still has resources available to purchase an adequate diet
for her children.
It allows deductions to help ease inequities. SNAP also targets benefits by
allowing deductions from income for the cost of certain essential household expenses
(such as rent and child care) before determining benefits. For example, although
earning a low income makes many workers eligible for child care and housing assistance, only a small number are able to participate in these programs because of
capped Federal funding.
Consider two families that live next door to each other: if one receives a housing
voucher or a subsidy to help afford child care costs but the other does not, the latter
family may have to spend more than 12 of its income on its shelter or child care
expenses. As a result, that family will have considerably less money available to buy
food. SNAP helps to partially address this inequity by allowing the household without the subsidy to deduct a portion of the housing or child care expense from its
income and receive a higher SNAP benefit. While this targeting of benefits adds
some complexity to the program, it is critical in focusing assistance more effectively
on those in greatest need.
To be sure, there are some exceptions to this framework to eliminate inequities
that can arise from counting all sources of income, such as a grant to a third party
meant to cover job training tuition. And, in other cases, Congress has explicitly excluded certain sources of income, such as special combat pay for military personnel,
for public policy reasons. Nevertheless, the Agriculture Committees have endeavored for over 40 years to establish a SNAP benefit structure and calculation that
is highly sensitive to family circumstances, including other forms of assistance.
Efforts to Coordinate SNAP With Other Programs
Part of our work at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is to work with
states on improving the delivery of SNAP. We respond to states questions and requests for technical assistance on SNAP rules, best practices for business operations
and ways to improve access to SNAP by eligible people. Because SNAP has a significant presence within the health and human services delivery system, states questions and concerns are not limited to SNAP policy and operations. They also want
information and ideas about how to improve their overall operations and service delivery, including other programs such as Medicaid, child care, cash assistance
through the Temporary for Needy Families (TANF) block grant and other programs.
My colleagues and I have spent a great deal of time studying how SNAP interacts
with other programs at the state and local level and the ways that states seek to
coordinate SNAP with the array of services that they offer.
Many states have made progress over the last 10 years in coordination or seamless service delivery across programs (as opposed to within a single program). Although, some states had coordinated policies on the books, too often the on-theground procedures needed to operationalize these policies did not exist. In addition,
few if any states had an effective, data-based system for determining whether families were connected to the full range of programs for which they qualify.
Lack of cross-program coordination undermines states efforts to operate efficient
systems. It also reduces overall support for families. Because they must navigate a
complex and inefficient web of systems, families often are unable to secure the full
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
38
package of benefits for which they are eligible. This undermines the safety nets
ability to support struggling families and seniors. For example, children are much
likelier have better outcomes when they have access to health coverage and SNAPs
nutrition benefits for a comprehensive set of health supports.
Consider a family with low earnings that is eligible for childrens health coverage,
SNAP, and child care. Despite the fact that these programs often serve the same
families and require very similar enrollment information, under the worst case scenario a struggling family would have had to apply and renew benefits via three separate processes that are not very synchronized. Further, busy state workers in these
three programs would spend time duplicating each others efforts. More typical, although still highly problematic, was a model where households would apply for several benefits through a single application process and then be required to keep separate workers representing the different programs appraised of their circumstances.
Often, the household would also have to renew their eligibility through separate and
redundant processes.
While these approaches to service delivery still exist, they are no longer the norm.
States have worked very hard to break down the silos and redundant administrative
systems among programs. They have been motivated by several reasons:
As a result of the recent downturn, millions more families have lost income or
are now out of work altogether. And many of these families have turned to their
state governments for help through programs like unemployment insurance,
SNAP, and health coverage. In addition, more people are eligible for health coverage through Medicaid and the Childrens Health Insurance Program (CHIP)
because of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). But states havent had more resources to deal with the increased demand. To the contrary, human services offices budgets and staff were cut as millions more people have walked through
the doors. Despite these incredibly trying circumstances, states have managed
to serve these new families in need, and several states have actually improved
their service delivery through the downturn.
Technology offers new opportunities. In a paper-bound system, it was often hard
or administratively burdensome to share information across programs. Now
many states have new options to work quickly. For example, today most states
use document imaging systems as a means to save and file household
verifications. They also offer call centers where clients can call and easily report
a change in their situation and need for benefits. This technology can make it
easier for participants and for state caseworkers to update multiple programs
for new information about household circumstances.6
Finding effective ways to leverage state resources to achieve more is in the
states interest. When state agencies spend less staff time on processing eligibility, they can redeploy those resources to more important tasks like connecting families to work and supporting families who need more intensive supports.
Making it easier for eligible low-income families and seniors to access all of the
benefits for which they are eligible helps states struggling citizens. Making
sure that eligible individuals can access the help that they need will help to ensure their financial stability. Many states believe that families can better spend
their time looking for work (and staying in work) as well as address other family needs when they are not constantly at the local human services office standing in line and filling out redundant forms. As the body of evidence regarding
the long term benefits of key health and human services programs emerge, it
becomes even more compelling to connect eligible families and individuals to a
package of these supports.
SNAPs Role in Cross-Program Coordination Efforts
SNAP has played a major role in these efforts. Federal, state, and local policymakers who operate other programs appreciate many of SNAPs features that I described earlier. They understand SNAPs significant role in the broader health and
human services world. Some of the key contexts that state and local leaders consider
as they assess SNAPs role in their broader systems:
Individuals eligible for SNAP have relatively low income. As a result,
they are often eligible for other Federal and state benefits. For example, in vir6 For more information on how states are leveraging new technology with respect to health
and human services programs, including SNAP, see GAINING GROUND: A Guide to Facilitating Technology Innovation in Human Services, by Freedman Consulting, http://
tfreedmanconsulting.com/documents/GainingGround_FINAL.pdf.
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
39
tually all cases, children who participate in SNAP will also be financially eligible for health coverage under Medicaid. And, for programs where states set the
income eligibility rules such as child care subsidies and the low-income heating
and energy assistance program (LIHEAP), SNAP participants typically have incomes well below the eligibility limits established by states. To be sure, SNAP
participants will not necessarily qualify for these benefits. Some programs such
as WIC or child care have additional non-financial eligibility criteria. In other
cases, the programs do not receive sufficient funding to provide services or benefits to all those who qualify. Nevertheless, given that a large number of very
low-income people participate in SNAP, it is a logical program to consider for
basic coordination purposes.
States co-administer SNAP with other major health and human services programs. According to USDAs most recent State Options Report from
2012, more than 40 states co-administer SNAP and Medicaid.7 Even more
states co-administer SNAP and cash assistance under TANF. In addition, many
of the agencies that administer SNAP also administer other human services
programs such as child care, LIHEAP, job training programs as well as state
and local services targeted at low-income people. This means that SNAP co-exists with other programs in state computer systems, within state policy manuals, in staff trainings, and on forms and notices. Finding efficient ways to coordinate the administration of these programs makes solid operational sense
from a state and local perspective.
States seek new approaches to be more efficient and effective in their business operations and administrative costs. As the state human services agencies
build computer systems, train staff, and build business operations to screen and
enroll eligible low-income people into the array of programs that they offer, they
look to solicit information from applicants once to assess their eligibility for the
programs and services that the agency provides.
SNAP rigorously assesses eligibility. As noted above, SNAP does a very
thorough review of a households eligibility. SNAP state agencies are required
to verify household circumstances through paper documentation and third-party
data matches. Overall, the assessment required under Federal law for SNAP far
exceeds the requirements laid out in any other program. SNAP demands that
states have relatively sophisticated means to process eligibility and verify a
households circumstances. The quality and caliber of SNAP eligibility assessments is well understood within the health and human services arena. Not only
can other programs rely upon the quality of SNAPs eligibility findings, in many
cases, using information that has been verified by SNAP will increase the integrity of the program importing the information.
Despite its strengths, SNAP isnt a perfect partner. SNAP is a complex program
with exacting Federal standards. Because SNAP is a program of last resort and its
benefits are fully financed by the Federal Government, the program rules target
benefits to the neediest households with a very detailed current picture of their situation. Federal rules require quite a bit from households and states to ensure that
the determination of eligibility is accurate and fair. As a result, SNAPs complicated
rules exceed what other programs require or desire. States do not typically wish to
import all of SNAPs rules into other programs. Instead, they find that they can import individual findings from SNAP, such as an income calculation, to other programs.
7 See program integration table on page 23 http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/10State_Options.pdf.
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
40
Examples of Cross-Program Coordination
Figure 9
Many Children Likely Eligible for SNAP and Medicaid/CHIP Fail To Receive One Or Both Supports (2011)
Note: Program participation among citizen children with family income

below the poverty level and no reported health insurance. The data should
be viewed with caution. See footnote 11.
Source: CBPP analysis of a Survey of Income and Program Participation.
One of our current efforts to support states efforts to improve program integration is through the Work Support Strategies (WSS) Initiative. The WSS Initiative
is a foundation-supported effort led by the Center for Law and Social Policy and the
Urban Institute. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities leads the technical assistance effort to states. The project is motivated by the value public benefit programs can provide to working families and the belief that the states and localities
administering these programs can improve how eligible families access and retain
these benefits. Under the project, core work support programs are defined as SNAP,
health coverage, and child care.8
Many eligible people, particularly in working families, do not participate in the
core work supports for which they are eligible. In some instances, this is simply due
to limited funding for the service. For example, although earning a low income
makes many workers eligible for child care and housing assistance, only a small
share are able to participate in these programs because of capped Federal funding.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) estimates that Federal
funding for child care subsidies served fewer than 20 percent of potentially eligible
families in 2009.9
Also, families often miss out on programs that do, in fact, have sufficient funding
to enroll all eligible people. For example, USDA estimates that SNAP served only
68 percent of people in eligible working families in 2011. The Urban Institute found
that four million children who had no health insurance in 2011 were eligible for
Medicaid or CHIP.10 Data from national surveys confirm that children who are likely eligible for SNAP and Medicaid are not always enrolled in both. Virtually all U.S.
citizen children in families whose annual income is at or below poverty and who do
not report having health coverage should be eligible for both Medicaid/CHIP and
8 For
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
11318021.eps
more information about WSS, see: http://www.urban.org/worksupport/.

9 Estimates of Child Care Eligibility and Receipt for Fiscal Year 2009, U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, August 2012, http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/12/childcareeligibility/ib.cfm.
10 Medicaid/CHIP Participation Rates Among Children: An Update, Urban Institute, September 2013, http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/412901-%20Medicaid-CHIP-ParticipationRates-Among-Children-An-Update.pdf.
41
SNAP. Figure 9 11 shows that nearly 40 percent of children likely to be eligible for
both SNAP and health coverage are not receiving both programs.12
Our WSS grantee states (Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, North Carolina, Rhode Island,
and South Carolina) have taken on the challenge of creating and implementing a
plan to streamline, integrate, and improve the provision of work support benefits
through their SNAP, Medicaid, and child care programs. Each state committed to
the goal of increasing enrollment by eligible people in these core work support programs. While most states hope their efforts will also reduce the burden on caseworkers and administrative costs in these systems, all are motivated to improve the
lives of the families they serve. These states are undertaking this work at an exciting time. The ACA changed the way that states must assess Medicaid eligibility,
requiring states to rework their old eligibility rules. In addition, the ACA sets new
standards for customer service and the means of doing eligibility determinations,
which has required many states to upgrade their technology and offer new services
such as online applications and phone service. As states implement these important
changes and upgrades in Medicaid, they are actively looking for ways to leverage
improvements in their overall systems.
Illinois Health and Human Services Secretary Michele Saddler outlined the
states transformation of several key programslike SNAP (food stamps), Medicaid,
and child careto help low-income families keep and maintain jobs in a hearing before the Ways and Means Committee last summer. Illinois is simplifying and aligning policies across programs and investing in new technology to make it easier for
families to apply and easier for the state to verify their information. As Saddler explained:
When I began, our benefit delivery system was broken. Families had to apply
multiple times to get the assistance their family desperately needed. They had
to take hours or even days off of work to sit in a local office to get help, potentially losing the very work we encourage. Our focus has been on finding and creating efficiencies in this system, seeking a better environment for customers and
staff. A more efficient and accessible system leads to greater stability for families
and ultimately saves the government future costs of benefits and administration. 13
Through both our everyday work with states and the WSS Initiative, we have observed many ways other programs can use SNAP to streamline their own administrative processes as well as improve the client experience.
States and other program operators have implemented the federally
mandated connections between SNAP and other programs. Congress has
made the determination that, in some cases, enrollment in SNAP is sufficient
evidence of financial eligibility for another program. For example, all children
who participate in SNAP are deemed automatically eligible for the free school
meals program. Pregnant and post-partum women and young children receiving
SNAP are income eligible for the Special Supplemental Nutrition program for
Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) although they must still meet the programs criteria for nutrition risk to qualify. In these cases, Congress deemed
that school meals and WIC must rely upon the SNAP income determination because it is so reliable. Moreover, households who apply for SNAP are self-identi11 The data for this analysis are from the Census Bureaus Survey of Income and Program
Participation (SIPP) for calendar year 2011. We limited the analysis to U.S. citizen children
with incomes below the Federal poverty level because these individuals are very likely to be eligible for both Medicaid and SNAP. The data should be interpreted with caution, as the SIPP
significantly undercounts participation in Medicaid and SNAP. In 2009 the number of children
reported in the SIPP as receiving SNAP is only about 75 percent of the number of children
thought to have actually received SNAP based on SNAP administrative data. USDA finds that
SNAP reaches about 85 percent of eligible children, rather than the 67 percent identified in this
SIPP analysis. Similarly, the SIPP does not include about 13 to 40 percent of the children who
receive health coverage through Medicaid or CHIP.
12 A recent Urban Institute study based on a different national survey (the American Community Survey) found that in 2008 about 15 percent of children without health insurance coverage
but eligible for Medicaid or CHIP were in households that received SNAP. This difference demonstrates that while there appear to be significant numbers of families that do not receive all
the benefits for which they qualify, national survey data have significant limitations which may
make it difficult to obtain accurate figures. See Genevieve M. Kenney, Victoria Lynch, Allison
Cook, and Samantha Phong, Who And Where Are The Children Yet To Enroll In Medicaid And
The Childrens Health Insurance Program? Health Affairs, October 2010, vol. 29 no. 10, 1920
1929.
13 Secretary Michelle Saddlers testimony before the House Committee on Ways and Means
Subcommittee on Human Resources, July 31, 2013, see: http://waysandmeans.house.gov/
uploadedfiles/michelle_saddler_testimony_hr073113.pdf.
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
42
fying themselves as needing food assistance. Connecting these children and
pregnant women to other programs that could help meet their nutrition needs
is a sensible approach.
The new Work Opportunity Investment Act will allow individuals who participate in SNAP (among other programs) to be automatically determined to meet
the income requirements for services. Other Federal programs, such as Federal
Financial Student Aid programs, allow applicants to skip certain portions of
their needs assessments if the applicant or his or her family participate in
SNAP. Program participation is considered a sufficient indication of financial
need under the programs eligibility rules.
States and local governments use SNAP enrollment and information
where they have the flexibility to set the rules. States can set the income
eligibility guidelines for certain programs such as child care assistance through
the Child Care Development Block Grant (CCDF) and energy assistance
through LIHEAP. If states establish income eligibility rules equal to or above
the SNAP income eligibility limits, they can then use a households enrollment
in SNAP as sufficient evidence that the family meets the programs income eligibility limits.
Idaho, for example, recently raised its CCDF income eligibility to 130 percent
of the Federal poverty line, and indexed it to rise with inflationthus, aligning
the cutoff with SNAP and ensuring that the alignment would stay in force over
time.14 Programs like child care subsidies and LIHEAP are often run by local
community action agencies that do not have the resources to invest in sophisticated computer eligibility systems with built-in third-party data checks. By
using SNAPs income determination, states ensure a high-quality, accurate assessment of need. Other entities that target their resources to low-income individuals or households also use SNAP enrollment as evidence of need. For example, school districts may elect to waive school fees for individuals who participate in SNAP.
Its worth noting again that importing a SNAP income eligibility determination does not necessarily qualify an individual for other programs benefits.
Often there will be other eligibility criteria and most human services programs
do not have funding to meet demand.
States coordinate eligibility and enrollment processes with SNAP to eliminate
redundant requests. Where states cannot or do not wish to align other programs income eligibility rules with SNAP (e.g., states often set much higher income eligibility guidelines for child care subsidies because they wish to provide
child care subsidies to low- and moderate-income households), they may seek to
coordinate or to align the processes by which they determine that applicants are
eligible. Approximately 13 of states package SNAP online applications with at
least four other programs. This means that people seeking more than one form
of assistance only need to fill out a single application. Similarly, workers need
to process only one application and the supporting verification.
Income verification is another area where the eligibility rules might differ but
states could align the process. For example, one program might ask for the four
most recent weeks of income while another asks for the last 30 days of income
and a third asks for monthly income. Instead, a state might choose to set a different income eligibility limit for SNAP and another program but use the same
income verification standards against which they measure eligibility. Because
SNAP is often the most significant program in terms of size and paperwork and
verification demands as well as quality control reviews, states often align other
programs to its standards. New Hampshire and Oklahoma are two states that
have standardized the types of verification they seek from families applying for
both SNAP and child care.15
States can also use verified data in the SNAP record to support eligibility determination and redeterminations in other programs such as Medicaid or child
care. This approach, often called an ex-parte review, allows families benefits in
other programs to be proactively renewed using current information from another program such as SNAP. The agency looks at other systems before seeking
any information from the client at renewal. If a child care worker, for example,
checked if a family was enrolled in SNAP, they could use SNAP data to renew
income eligibility for child care benefits and would need to gather only the addi14 Confronting the Child Care Eligibility Maze: Simplifying and Aligning with Other Work
Supports, by Gina Adams and Hannah Matthews, December 2013, p. 31, http://
www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412971-confronting-the-child-care.pdf.
15 Ibid, p. 38.
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
43
tional relevant information on work status or other unique child care eligibility
elements.16
To be sure, perfect alignment is rarely achieved and often is not desirable. First,
SNAPs rules do differ from other programs. The SNAP household definition is
based on which group of individuals living together purchase and prepare food together. This understandably differs from which group of individuals could be expected to contribute to the health care costs of others. Moreover, SNAPs eligibility
standards are rigorous. Households are required to provide extensive documentation
of their circumstances, participate in an eligibility interview, report significant
change in their circumstances as they arise, and have their eligibility reassessed on
a regular basis. Other programs do not have the necessary administrative funding
to pursue such an approach, nor would it be appropriate for them to do so given
their structure and design.
As states work to better coordinate their systems, they are discovering that there
is often far more flexibility in Federal programs to align and coordinate, or crossleverage, information than they thought. Often disconnects are the result of their
own making or a lack of understanding of the flexibility given to them by the Federal Government. Other times, differences between programs are by design and
originate from the programs different goals, as described above in the household
definition example. And, there are times when states discover differences between
programs that raise reasonably questions. For example, several states have asked
if they can use employer records to verify household income via states unemployment records for households with stable circumstances. Medicaid allows and encourages states to use third party data matches to verify income even if the information
is a little dated. SNAP historically has required current information even from
households with very stable employment arrangements. In such a case, the Federal
Government will permit waivers from Federal SNAP requirements to test whether
allowing SNAP to use other programs rules is appropriate and cost effective. And
USDA and HHS are soliciting additional ideas from states where sensible alignment
opportunities exist.
Looking Ahead: SNAPs Relationship to Other Assistance Programs
I appreciate the Subcommittees effort to delve into the relationship between
SNAP and other Federal assistance programs. SNAP plays a major role in the
broader arena of health and human services programs. It is both responsive to and
has a significant impact on many programs outside of the Committees jurisdiction.
I hope that my testimony has given you some sense of how your work influences
other programs through SNAP. The state agencies and SNAP caseworkers that operate and implement SNAP must think about the program in the context of the
health and human services systems they are running. Its helpful to consider
SNAPs environment and program operators perspectives as we strive to improve
the program and further its positive impact on struggling individuals and families.
There can be a tension between remaining true to SNAPs goals of addressing food
insecurity and hunger and harmonizing and coordinating SNAP policies with other
Federal assistance programs. If SNAP aligned perfectly with other programs, it
would no longer be SNAP. Many of its unique features are by design and contribute
to its success. As you consider options to improve coordination, it is important that
those proposals not undermine SNAPs strengths as a food assistance program targeted to individuals and families with the least ability to purchase food. Proposals
to sweep away some of SNAPs key features or that would shift benefits away from
food assistance to other purposes run afoul of the programs goals and proven success.
Section 4016 of the 2014 Farm Bill is an example of a positive policy change to
help harmonize SNAP with other programs. That provision requires that USDA
work with other Federal agencies to create data exchange standards consistent with
other Federal assistance programs. This will facilitate the ability of programs (and
Federal and state governments) to share data across programs. Such standardization is expected to help improve program integrity and to improve our ability to assess program performance.
USDA can do more to assist states efforts to administer SNAP as part of the larger health and human services system. First and foremost, USDAs oversight and
policy development would be strengthened if its staff developed more expertise in
other Federal assistance programs. When SNAP policy is inconsistent with other
major programs such as Medicaid, it would be helpful for USDA to be aware of
those differences and to flag them for states. (The same holds true for HHS.) State
16 Ibid,
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
p. 40.
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
44
and local governments, even individual caseworkers, ought not to be left on their
own to disentangle differing Federal rules and regulations. It seems reasonable for
the Federal agencies to navigate what we ask their state counterparts to manage.
That having been said, USDA has taken steps to engage SNAP agencies in a conversation about how the recent changes in Medicaid could be affecting SNAP operations at the local level. They can do more here, and I encourage them to do so.
As states undertake innovative and effective cross-program coordination efforts,
we ought to seek to share those best practices across states. The Work Support
Strategies Initiative offers such an opportunity and we plan to do more dissemination about the project in the coming year.
I also believe that the Federal Government could do more to assess how well Federal and state agencies are doing with respect to connecting eligible low-income people to the package of key supports for poor children, working families, and seniors
and people with disabilities. Low-income people will likely fare better if they can
count on the help of SNAP, health coverage, and other work supportsprograms
that we know work and that improve the long-term outcomes of those who receive
them. Policymakers need information about how well states connect eligible individuals to these programs as a whole. We can learn from states that do well and identify barriers in Federal rules or local practice that may impede states from comprehensively addressing their residents needs.
Finally, I did not spend time in my testimony on the interaction between SNAP
and the major Federal entitlements for seniors and people with disabilitiesSocial
Security and Medicare. Current SNAP law instructs the Social Security Administration (SSA) to inform Social Security and SSI applicants and participants about
SNAP benefits and streamline the SNAP application process for them. USDA reimburses SSA for these activities. As low-income senior citizens have the lowest SNAP
participation rates of any demographic group, but very high Social Security and
Medicare participation rates. I believe that more could be done to assist poor eligible
seniors to enroll in SNAP at SSA offices. A future oversight hearing or more work
by USDA to explore how this process could be improved could go a long way to improving the food security of low-income senior citizens and people with disabilities.
Conclusion
SNAP is an efficient and effective program. It alleviates hunger and poverty and
has positive impacts on the long-term outcomes of those who receive its benefits.
SNAP is highly targeted, making it very sensitive to the other benefits that families receive. SNAP either counts their income or recognizes households that receive
benefits from other programs by generally providing less assistance to those families
than families who do not receive other forms of assistance.
And, SNAP has exacting standards with respect to eligibility and administrative
requirements. This makes it a good fit for states to looking to use its findings for
other programs. Such integration increases efficiency by reducing administrative
costs and can help eligible families receive the help that they need with fewer transaction costs.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Dean. Your timing is immaculate.

Ms. DEAN. I practiced.
The CHAIRMAN. The chair would like to remind the Members
that they will be recognized for questioning in the order of seniority
for Members who were present at the fall of the gavel, and after
that Members will be recognized in the order that they arrived.
And recognizing myself for first questions, I would turn to Ms.
Squier. And I believe in your testimony the time didnt allow you
to get to a point of an exhibit that is in your written testimony.
That is a directive, dated September 30, 2009, from the USDA Food
and Nutrition Services. Could you explain that directive and the
impact that it has had on, lets say, the policy in New Mexico and
perhaps other states that you might be aware of?
Ms. SQUIER. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman and Members. I have worked
in many states, five states and the Federal Government. And in
Texas in 2009 we were told by the Federal Government that we
would now be acknowledged, not quite rewarded, but acknowledged
for adding people to the food stamp rolls. This is what USDA FNS
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
45
wanted us to do. And I did actually attend in New Orleans an
award ceremony for Texas for adding a number of people to the
rolls. I was slightly horrified about that.
We are doing the same thing in New Mexico and I believe every
other state. And I think that the pushand I will be fair, the push
has gone through more than one Administrationthe push to put
people on food stamps has caused an incredible rise. And to be acknowledged by the Federal Government to do so has caused more
people to join onto the Food Stamp Program.
The CHAIRMAN. And, Ms. Squier, the language that I see in this
memo says, We encourage you to continue promoting expanded
categorical eligibility as a way to increase SNAP participation and
reduce state workloads.
Ms. SQUIER. Mr. Chairman, that is exactly true.
The CHAIRMAN. That has had a significant impact across the
country as far as your experience is concerned?
Ms. SQUIER. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. And, Mr. Doar, you have dealt with large claims
in a large population state and have noticed actually a significantly
high degree of professionalism come out of that arena. I think you
are in the crucible a little harder than many others. And so from
that standpoint I would ask you, if you had a limited budget to
work with, with regard to SNAP benefits, and you had to get that
carved down to something that was manageable, what would be
your approach with regard to categorical eligibility? Do you have
any creative things like fingerprints? Any other items you might
want to discuss that could
Mr. DOAR. Sure. The State of New York, after I left, made the
decision to accept categorical eligibility with regard to the asset
test. And I had felt as the City Administrator that that was a mistake, because I felt that it allowed people who had assets that
could be available to help them in times of need to avoid reporting
those assets. And we had an experience where we felt, by not investigating assets and by not being able to inquire about assets,
people were more likely, who did have sufficient means and would
not be eligible for the program based on income, it was easier for
them to get on the program.
So that would definitely be something that I would speak about.
In my testimony, I suggested it should be higher than the asset
test used to be, but it should not be unlimited assets.
The CHAIRMAN. And with regard to other categorical eligibility,
with regard to TANF for example?
Mr. DOAR. I think that in any program where you say to someone, you are automatically eligible based on the fact that you have
read a brochure or that you have been given a brochure, it seems
to me that sends a kind of message that isnt really the way we
want our programs to be run. So I wasnt comfortable with that
categorizing. But the thing I was most concerned about was the
asset test.
We did have finger imaging as an effort to protect against duplicate benefit issuances. Mayor Bloomberg felt very strongly that it
was an effective measure. It was an effective measure in New York
City. We still have it for welfare applicants for TANF. But Governor Cuomo, under some pressure from the Federal Government,
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
46
decided that we could no longer do that. And it wasnt so much
that we caught people as much as we deterred people from applying for benefits in multiple jurisdictions.
The CHAIRMAN. What if we went down a path that might be a
block grant on a per capita basis or perhaps a cost-share so the
states had some skin in the game?
Mr. DOAR. Well, one of the characteristics is that given the current benefit levels, a block grant of SNAP calculated based on the
current benefit amounts going out to states would be quite high.
So if the country is heading into a stronger recovery where the
need for these sorts of benefits was reduced, the states would have
dollars freed up and they should be required to spend it on social
services programs, but they could spend more effectively than a stipend for food.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Doar. I thank the witnesses. And
now I turn to Ranking Member Fudge for her questioning.
Ms. FUDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. But because I know the
time is fleeting and we do have another series of votes, I am going
to yield at this point to Mr. McGovern and I will ask my questions
at the end.
Mr. MCGOVERN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the
Ranking Member.
I just want to make sure that we understand the context here
before I go into my comments or my questions. I mean, we live in
a country where there are 50 million people who are hungry or food
insecure. Close to 17 million of them are kids. So we have a real
issue here with people living in the United States, the richest country in the history of the world, that are vulnerable and need some
support.
And, Ms. Squier, when you said that people who have millions
of dollars in the bank are eligible for SNAP, if that is the case in
New Mexico someone ought to be fired, because that is not the case
anyplace else. I dont know too many millionaires who are dying to
get on SNAP. I dont know why they would. The average benefit
is about $1.40 per meal, per day. So it is not something that I
think people aspire to.
In terms of categorical eligibility, we all ought to keep in mind
that this was a conservative idea proposed about by John Kasich
as a way to reduce some of the costs to states and to make it easier, quite frankly, for people who are eligible for a variety of programs to be able to get them. Being poor is hard work, and sometimes it is a bureaucratic maze to be able to find out what you are
eligible for. So this was supposed to streamline the process.
So before we throw categorical eligibility out the window, lets
understand what it is about. And I will yield to Ms. Dean for a
comment.
Ms. DEAN. I just want to throw in a few of the facts about categorical eligibility. I think there has just been a little too much
rhetoric.
This Committee considered repealing categorical eligibility over
the last year or 2, and the estimate that CBO gave you showed
that it would reduce baseline spending and remove people from the
program equal to about two percent. So there is no way that categorical eligibility is the cause or the fuel for caseload growth.
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
47
I think another important thing to point out is while states
under the option have the flexibility to adopt a less restrictive
gross income test, meaning relaxing the rule of about $2,200 a
month gross income for a family of three, to slightly higher so that
a working mom paying a huge amount of her income in rent and
child care may qualify. However, she still has to go through a rigorous assessment of eligibility and qualify after her disposable income is counted.
Mr. MCGOVERN. I appreciate you for clarifying that.
And, Mr. Doar, I agree with you. This is not a perfect program,
and I think we need to look at ways to better help people transition
from poverty into independence.
I think the benefit is, in my opinion, not generous enough. People
who are on SNAP usually end up in food banks because it is not
this overly generous benefit.
The majority of people who are able to work actually do work.
I am going to give you an example. I spent a night at a homeless
shelter in Worcester, Massachusetts, about a month ago, a family
homeless shelter. The majority of adults in that homeless shelter
worked. They were making minimum wage, just enough so their
benefits began to get cut, they hit this cliff, but not enough to put
a downpayment on an apartment and afford to pay rent in Worcester, Massachusetts. So maybe we ought to be talking about making
work pay a little bit better and maybe increase the minimum wage.
From 2009 to 2014, the cost of milk increased by 17 percent, but
the minimum wage hasnt changed. From 2009 to 2014, the cost of
eggs increased 23 percent, but the minimum wage hasnt changed.
So, I mean, part of what we ought to be talking about, as well as
kind of streamlining the program, is making sure that people are
getting an adequate benefit to put nutritious food on the table for
their families.
And I am curious, there has been some criticism of some large
employers who pay their workers low wages knowing that even
full-time employees will qualify for SNAP. Does anyone have an
opinion on this? Is the Federal Government subsidizing SNAP?
Mr. DOAR. Well, I would just address a couple of questions about
this rigorous application process. The SNAP application process
has changed a lot in the last 10 years. And to the extent that it
is not quite the number of rules, the number of recertification periods, the ability to do interviews, not face to face, but over the
phone or over the Internet, have made the process much easier to
be accurate.
So if you dont have a lot of rules that you have to follow in order
to be sure you are giving benefits to people who are really eligible,
then it is easier not to break any of those rules. So I want to caution you, I was proud of our QC record in New York City and New
York State as well, but some of it came because the job got easier,
because the rules were lessened and reduced.
Mr. MCGOVERN. Yes, just one final thing. As a Member of Congress who does a lot of casework, a lot of people who fall on hard
times end up coming to us because they cant quite figure out the
system. So maybe it has gotten easier, but I will just tell you that
it is not easy for a lot of poor families when they find out that
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
48
someone has lost a job and they cant afford their rent or they cant
afford to pay their heating bill.
Mr. DOAR. There is a balance, there needs to be a balance.
Mr. MCGOVERN. It is a balance, and I think we ought to strike
that balance. I just worry about the fact that when we talk about
these issues, sometimes we end of demonizing these peopleand I
am not saying you are, I am not saying you are, at allbut sometimes we end up demonizing people who are poor, who desperately
do not want to be poor, and who are working.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleladys yielded time has expired. You
will be allowed, though, to answer the question, Mr. Doar.
Mr. DOAR. We expanded benefits during the time that I served
both at the state and city, maybe greater than any other constituency. I believed in helping people. But the purpose was to help people who also could get into work. And often what we found is that
people were not reporting earnings when we expected they would,
and that is a problem that we have to address.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleladys yielded time has expired.
I turn now to the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Scott.
Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And before I get into my
questions, I want to say thank to you a group back home in the
district that I represent in Thomasville and Valdosta; they are also
in Albany and Douglas. It is the Second Harvest Food Bank, 13,000
square miles, 30 counties that they operate in where they take the
vegetables and the bread and the other things from grocers who
maybe arent quite up to standard for selling and make sure that
they are able to help get that to many of the people who need it
the most in our district.
As we talk about this issue, there are a lot of people out there
who are trying to resolve this issue for Americans across the country, and it is a serious issue. And, Mr. McGovern, I certainly appreciate your passion for it. I know we differ on some ideas of how to
resolve it, but I do agree with you that there are people out there
that need the help, and there are a lot of people that are out there
working to help them. And I do appreciate your passion on it.
The reason, as we talk about the two percent, if you will, whether it is two percent or five percent, the challenge we have right now
to me is the integrity of the system. And when you allow the integrity to start to slide through, whether it is categorical eligibility or
whether it is turning your head and looking the other way, and I
would suggest that even with the states, some of the states, what
they are doing is essentially state-sanctioned gaming of the system,
then any of the programs lose support of the American citizen, and
that is where we have the problem.
And whether it is one percent fraud or two percent fraud or ten
percent fraud, we have a responsibility to address that fraud, because if we dont, then in the end we will be able to serve fewer
people and the money doesnt go to the people who actually need
it the most.
So again, I want to say thank you to Second Harvest Food Bank
who I have the privilege of representing, who does a great job of
getting quality food at a tremendously reduced price to the people
who need it throughout three Congressional districts in the State
of Georgia, one of which is mine.
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
49
With that said, I want to move to the integrity of the system, if
you will. Ms. Squier, as we talk about the difference in state and
Federal requirements for the system, do you believe that the states
have a better chance of putting the integrity in the system or do
you think that the Federal Government would do a better job of
putting integrity into the system?
Ms. SQUIER. Mr. Chairman, Representative, I believe the
states
The CHAIRMAN. Your microphone.
Ms. SQUIER. We have shown with the TANF program what the
states can do, a hugely successful program. And while I know you
dont want to dwell on this fact, one of the things we can do in the
Food Stamp Program is what we did in the TANF program, and
that is have a work requirement for those who are not already
working. Because I do understand that you have poor out there
that are working and struggling every day.
But the able-bodiedI am not talking about disabled people or
older peopleable-bodied people with an able mind have risen that
are now getting food stamps. And there is a reason for that, and
that is because we have made it so easy. And I would like to see
the states run programs that fit for them specifically.
Mr. SCOTT. Would any of the other of you like to comment on
that briefly?
Ms. DEAN. I think that what we have right now is a strong partnership, Federal oversight for a national problem, which is hunger
in America. People are not different, they are hungry in Kentucky
versus Texas versus Washington. Having a national nutrition
standard is crucial, the rules and the rigor with which you, Congress, establish for the program that states then operate.
I think states by and large do a terrific job. Can we hold them
to a higher standard, push them to do better and more? Absolutely,
both with respect to integrity and serving all eligible people. But
it has been a very successful partnership to date.
Mr. DOAR. I think that we have been doing this for a long time
this way, and I think that there is room for experimentation and
testing of different approaches in which states could experiment
using the food stamp benefits or the funding provided by food
stamps to run a program that encouraged work more and provided
assistance equally as effectively.
Mr. SCOTT. I certainly support the work requirement.
If I can, Mr. Chairman, I know my time has expired. I have one
other organization in Georgia, a group called Manna, that has done
a wonderful job in helping alleviate hunger and malnutrition
throughout the world, Fitzgerald, Georgia. They take the good
Georgia peanuts and they mix it with vitamins and it is provided
for children around the world. And they have done an excellent job,
and I want to say thank you to the people there for what they have
done.
The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman yields
back. And I remind the panel that we are expecting votes in about
10 minutes, which means we might have 20 minutes at the outside.
And I appreciate your cooperation.
I recognize Ms. Lujan Grisham for her 5 minutes.
Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
50
And welcome, Ms. Squier. And I am really going to focus on New
Mexico, and I wish we were doing that in a way, because we are
proud of what is going on in New Mexico. And I will repeat this
again in my testimony and my question, but we are now the most
food insecure for children in the country and nearly the most food
insecure for adults in the country.
So as we talk about partnerships, the role for Federal oversight,
and given that I have been in a state cabinet, it is a hard job, as
Ms. Squier will attest to. But, in fact, our Human Services Department had questioned and actually had a judge require that they do
things differently in terms of many of their benefit programs,
which is why you absolutely need a partnership.
And I really appreciate that you are here because I do think we
need to have reform conversations, to think about proactive ways
to make these programs more stable for the future. I know that you
havent been doing that in New Mexico and you are not working
and wont testify before the New Mexico Legislature. So I am really
honored that you are willing to come before us today.
Now, you are part of a thing called the Secretarys Innovation
Group, and it recommends that SNAP be converted to a fixed allocation with work requirements, 30 hours per week being the family
norm.
I think every New Mexican would love that every able-bodied
adult would have meaningful employment, but lets be mindful
about the conditions around the country and lets talk about New
Mexico. We are ranked 48th for job growth among the states. Albuquerque, which is the heart of my district, is in a double-dip recession, the only community in the country in that situation, we lost
2,700 jobs over the last year.
As I said, we have the highest rate of food insecurity, 31 percent
for children.
So bearing in mind that New Mexico has these challenges that
our residents face, I am trying to understand exactly what you are
proposing. When there arent enough jobs to go around, do we tell
these kids and these families, I am sorry, you will be hungry? Because with a 31 percent rate, it looks to me that is exactly what
would be said with a mandatory work program.
Ms. Squier, how do we reconcile that?
Ms. SQUIER. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, Representative.
And I, too, would like to brag a little bit about New Mexico because
we are number one in the nation on the School Breakfast Program.
And we have also instituted School Breakfast After the Bell. We do
school lunches. And now we are introducing
Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. But those dont require work programs.
Ms. SQUIER. And, no, they dont.
Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. So lets focus on the work requirements.
And, in fact, I would disagree with you about the efforts in school
nutrition, which have also been under severe and consistent criticism.
So talk to me about how people are going to get jobs in states
like New Mexico. And, given your proposal, just how would that
work to take the 31 percent of kids who are hungry and make them
not hungry?
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
51
Ms. SQUIER. Well, Mr. Chairman, Representative, I would disagree with you a little bit about the jobs that are out there. What
I am doing right now is running a program in a little part of the
state called Hobbs. And it was a pizza delivery, Dominos, and they
needed people to work, and they couldnt get them.
Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. Because Hobbs has a huge oil and gas
boom, Ms. Squier, with so many high-paying jobs, six-figure incomes for people who are doing custodial work and driving trucks.
So lets just focus on
Ms. SQUIER. They couldnt get them because the people couldnt
pass the drug test.
Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. I am going to go on to something else, Ms.
Squier. In New Mexico, you have managed to cut TANF benefits
and reduce the number of participants in the program by 35 percent. Seems to me you have plenty of flexibility. You have also
slowed enrollment in what used to be a model SNAP program to
the point where 10,000 people are caught in a backlog waiting to
receive benefits.
When we add that backlog to the other programs, there are at
least 30,000 people that are waiting for months to receive emergency assistance. This became so urgent that in May a Federal
judge ruled that the New Mexico Human Services Department was
failing in its obligation to provide timely services and ordered the
Department to remove systemic and programmatic barriers and
process applications immediately.
Again, it seems to me that you have found many ways to have
flexibility in the programs and make it difficult to enroll and to
reach as few people as possible. I think it is important that this
Committee be clear that when we talk about flexibility and reform,
and it sounds like it is a good thing, but in reality it could mean
kicking off the very people we are trying to protect. We need to find
reforms that really target that population.
And I would like to ask, yes or no, that if Congress were to adopt
your recommendations, would wewould I expect to see even bigger backlogs in the State of New Mexico?
Ms. SQUIER. There are no current backlogs, maam. And you are
right that there was a backlog, and that is because the Affordable
Care Act and the Federal Government sent incomplete files to us.
So we had extra work to do to the tune of about 30,000 of them
a month.
Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. I completely disagree with you about that.
But in any event, I raise these issues to point out that the partnership is important. New Mexico had a model SNAP program. It does
not today. And that making sure that we have a balanced approach, Mr. Chairman, I think is an effective way forward.
[The clarifying information submitted is located on p. 59.]
Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. I yield back.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady yields back.
And anticipating no regional disagreement between the Ohio
Members, I would turn to the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Gibbs.
Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I would like to say that these programs are important and everybody that needs help should get the help. And I am
pleased to say that in the recent farm bill we passed we did in-
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
52
crease the funding for food banks. I think, as Mr. Scott talked
about earlier, food banks play a really big role and prevent a lot
of food from going to waste to help the needy.
But first, Mr. Doar, and the whole panel, cited statistics how participation in SNAP has increased and even during the economic cycles it doesnt go like this anymore, it just keeps going like this,
up. And of course that could be, I guess, we are in a stagnant economy, part-time work and low-income jobs, and that is another issue
for another day, I guess. But I think we do need to make sure we
protect taxpayers interests. And there are nearly 50 million people
on the SNAP program now. And you mentioned, Mr. Doar, that
some are working off the books. Some refuse to work.
Do you have any idea what percentage of people on SNAP might
be totally not eligible?
Mr. DOAR. Well, this is a hard number to get at, and we need
to continue to work on it, because it is not reported exactly the way
you would expect it to be. Because when someone applies for
SNAP, they answer questions concerning whatever income is in
their household. And one question is, do you have earnings? And
so we should know how many people who are not disabled, not elderly, and not children are getting SNAP but dont report any earnings.
And in my testimony, I have estimated what we think it is, and
it has grown. And so it is a large number. And I know that in my
experience in New York City that there were peopleand I dont
have a number, it needs further studywho were receiving Medicaid and SNAP and working in good fashion except in a way that
was off the books.
Mr. GIBBS. So you are saying it is a significant number?
Mr. DOAR. It is an issue. There isnt any question.
Mr. GIBBS. Okay. To follow that a little bit, what was the average timethis is to the panel, not just to Mr. Doarof people
being on SNAP in the past and maybe today? Has that changed?
Is it the average time? What is the average time?
Mr. DOAR. I dont have that.
Ms. DEAN. The latest study was from about 10 years ago. The
median length of stay at the time was 10 months; for workers, it
was shorter, about 8 months; and for seniors, for example, with
fixed incomes, longer, 12 to 24 months.
Mr. DOAR. And I would just point out that 10 years ago is a long
time in the change of the SNAP program.
Ms. DEAN. No, without a doubt. But that is the most recent
available data.
Mr. GIBBS. Okay. On this categorical eligibility, does that help
people get off SNAP programs? I mean, does it work the other way?
We have heard so much discussion about if you qualify for LIHEAP
and these other programs, you qualify for food stamps, my understanding. Now, if you fall off of one of the other programs, would
they come in and look and see if you still qualify for food stamps?
How does that mechanism work?
Mr. DOAR. Do you want to address that?
Ms. DEAN. Well, just to say, the reasons governors or State Commissioners adopted the option, for example, was to help stabilize
working families. We have working families just above the income
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
53
cutoff in SNAPwhich again, for a family of three is a little over
$2,100 a month, who might be paying quite a bit of their income
for rent and child careand wanted to offer them the help of food
assistance because after we looked at their budgets, their disposable income, they couldnt afford a basic diet for their kids.
So with that added help, does it help keep them in their job?
That was the theory of change of these governors.
Just again to reiterate, they still had to come in and go through
a thorough assessment of eligibility. What categorical eligibility allows is a relaxing of the gross income rule or the asset test. It does
not automatically qualify someone for the benefit. They still have
to be determined eligible.
Mr. GIBBS. Just another question to the panel. In the Agricultural Act of 2014 that we passed, are there incentives in there to
help people to get off SNAP to go to work?
Mr. DOAR. That question you are raising is an interesting one in
terms of the pressures and forces of the program from either the
Federal Government or the state. I dont, in 18 years of being in
the program, I dont sense that there was ever some sort of desire
to help people get off. There certainly was a great desire to help
people get on who were eligible. But SNAP is not a program that
focuses on working so that benefits are no longer needed, in my
judgment.
Mr. GIBBS. It sure seems like, what you just said, that a significant amount of people that are receiving SNAP benefits can work
or refuse to work.
Mr. DOAR. Well, I am not so sure about refuse to work. They are
not being asked. Remember, in the TANF program we have set up
these programs to help people get into employment. They do exist.
But we are not making them available or encouraging or requiring
SNAP recipients who are not reporting earnings to take advantage
of them.
That is what I want. And remember, it is not to go get a job, it
is come in and be engaged in an activity or receive a service that
can help get you a job. That is also part of the requirement associated with work.
Ms. DEAN. But I am worried this is leaving the impression that
there arent participants on the program who are, in fact, working.
In fact, that may be one reason, I think you pointed to it in the
beginning of your question, as to why SNAP caseloads remain elevated even though the unemployment rate is falling. Setting aside
the unemployment rate not being the perfect measure of the economy, we probably have many individuals who werent working who
have taken low-paying, low-hour jobs. They remain eligible.
Mr. GIBBS. My time has expired. I yield back Mr. Chairman.
That is because we have this stagnate economy. It is just growing at barely one percent or negative.
The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman from Ohio.
And I now recognize Mrs. Negrete McLeod for her 5 minutes.
Mrs. NEGRETE MCLEOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I guess I was living in another world and you were living in a
parallel world, because in California there were no jobs to be found.
I dont know about your states, but in California, we had such a
depression during the recession that I dont know where TANF
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
54
workers, where food stamp workers, people that are recipients were
able to get a job. Even people that had degrees, that had Ph.D.s,
couldnt get a job. So I dont know, maybe I am living somewhere
else.
Mr. DOAR. Well, in New York City we had a pretty strong economy. The recession hit us, and we came out of it earlier and we
came out faster. So we did have a lot of job opportunities, there
isnt any question. And that is why I am concerned about it, is because I also have these people receiving this benefit that I thought
was a work support, but they are not working and there was an
economy that produced jobs.
Mrs. NEGRETE MCLEOD. Well, I guess New York is a little more
lenient than California, because anybody that was receiving any
kind of aid of any kind had to have some way to show that they
were looking for a job, and if they had a job, then their benefits
for certain programs were then lessened, or second, cut off completely.
So I guess what I have to ask you all, if any policy changes that
would reduce the SNAP eligibility, is it going to reduce eligibility
for any other program in your states?
Ms. SQUIER. Mr. Chairman, Representative, it would more mirror
the eligibility as opposed to reduce it. For instance, I think what
some of us are proposing, not all of us, is that we do a TANF-like
program and mirror the Food Stamp Program to that program. I
think it would be more of a mirroring and not a reducing.
Ms. DEAN. Although certainly people on SNAP qualify for other
things. For example, children enrolled in the SNAP program are
auto-enrolled into the Free School Meals Program, which is very
sensible. These are families who are very low income and they have
self-identified themselves as food insecure. If we restricted eligibility for SNAP and those families werent on SNAP, they potentially would not qualify, for example, for the Free School Meals
Program.
Mrs. NEGRETE MCLEOD. I am sure you know that any child that
is hungry cannot learn.
Ms. DEAN. Absolutely.
Mrs. NEGRETE MCLEOD. Okay. Thank you.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady yields back.
And the chair now recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr.
McAllister.
Mr. MCALLISTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
One thing I just want to make sure that we are all clear on is,
we talk a lot about the people and the jobs and all, and I want to
make it clear that the blame here is not to be put on the people
that are on the SNAP program. The blame is to be put on those
of us that sit in Congress, past, present, and future, because we
have created the system that has not the accountability and has allowed the abuse and the different ways that we are sitting here
talking about today to make sure the accountability is there for the
people that are either on the system today, will be on the system
tomorrow, whether they have a job and they are receiving SNAP
or they are not receiving SNAP.
So with that, there are a few questions I want to ask. And this
one goes to you, Ms. Dean. You correctly pointed out that the tem-
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
55
porary benefit boost was part of the 2009 Recovery Act. And it
ended in November that last year. Your testimony cites the reductions of seven percent over the first 9 months of Fiscal Year 2014,
which was October 2013 through June 2014. Is the reduction in
benefits so due to the lapse of bonus benefits in the Recovery Act?
Ms. DEAN. That is quite a bit of it in terms of the spending, actually, and then as a result, average benefits are a little bit lower
than we thought they would be. So, in fact, there is a little bit more
there. But we in fact have fewer participants in the program. So
it is both things that are going on.
Mr. MCALLISTER. So you would say there has been a reduction
in the number of beneficiaries?
Ms. DEAN. Yes.
Mr. MCALLISTER. Okay. So Mr. Doar testified that even though
the economy has begun to strengthen, the number of recipients is
not dropping at an expected rate.
Mr. DOAR. It is not dropping at the rate it dropped in the 1980s.
It has not dropped in the rate that it dropped in the 1990s. And
there is always a lag. There is always a lag. But this is a long lag.
This is a longer lag than before.
And I should also point out that while it has dropped in the past
year, in the most recent month it went up. So there is something
different happening now than used to happen. Now, there may be
explanation for that, but it has been different.
Ms. DEAN. But this downturn, it was so far in excess of anything
we had experienced in previous recessions. We lost more jobs, individuals were unemployed for longer periods of time, and we are
adding far fewer jobs back to the economy, many of which are at
low pay and low hours. So, to me, I would like to see the caseloads
coming down because the economy is rebounding, but it just hasnt
done that yet.
Mr. MCALLISTER. And I agree. I think everyone on this panel,
and everyone in Congress agrees that we would love to see a society where no one was on the SNAP program. We would love to see
everyone above the poverty line. That is what we all strive for.
I represent the ninth poorest district in the country, and I see
it every day. And what I see with the SNAP program is I do see
the abuse.
And what I would like to see is accountability happen to where
the program is to where we provide to where the farm bill works
for the farmers and the SNAP program works together; to where
the nutrition value is there, but it is only certain items that provides nutrition; to where it has been incentivized, being on the
SNAP program, as to where there is only a certain amount of items
that you can go in the grocery store and you can get.
It is not just anything that you can go in there and get. It is not
an EBT card that gives you anything. It is those nutritional value
items that you get. So that you are limited to what you get, but
it is the nutritional value that you need, so kids are not hungry,
they are getting what they need.
Mr. DOAR. Congressman, Mayor Bloomberg proposed just a test
of limiting what you could purchase with SNAP by eliminating
something that was clearly not nutritious and a complete waste
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
56
with regard to health, sugary and sweetened beverages, and the
USDA rejected an experiment that would allow us to limit.
So you are asking for something that is just very hard to change
in the history of USDA. And it is unfortunate. But it is something
worth considering, especially considering the amount of money that
is spent on products that are not of nutritional value.
Mr. MCALLISTER. And that is where I come back to where I say
the accountability comes back on us, the body of Congress. This is
our fault. This is not the recipients fault.
And you were talking about how do we get people off of it? We
have worked real hard on the marriage. This is one case where we
should have been working harder on the divorce. We should have
been trying to figure out how does it come a time to where we get
them off the program. And how do we work to get them off the program? We work on better education. We work on giving them the
tools to get those better jobs.
And, yes, you are right, we have to have the jobs, we have to create and put the jobs there for them to have. But when the jobs are
thereand just like you was talking about in Hobbs and other
placeswe have to have the skill sets to be able to get those better
paying jobs when they are there, whether they are the six-figure
jobs or whatever.
But if we dont give them the skill sets, we have failed as a society to get them prepared. And that comes back on us as a body of
Congress. And that is not a Democratic issue, that is not a Republican issue, that is an American issue. And we are failing this country when we dont give those tools, when we are marrying them to
the problem, we are developing a culture year after year, decade
after decade of making them be dependent on us as a government.
So with that, I yield back any time, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana yields back.
And the chair now recognizes Ranking Member Fudge for her 5
minutes and any closing statement she might choose to offer.
Ms. FUDGE. Thank you so very much, Mr. Chairman.
Let me get a few things clear that I was confused about.
Mr. Doar, my colleague Mr. Gibbs asked you about the number
of people that you thought were basically scamming the system,
and you said you didnt know. So if you dont know, you cant say
it is significant. You either dont know or do you know.
Mr. DOAR. Well, I
Ms. FUDGE. Do you know? The question is, sir, do you know?
Mr. DOAR. What I said in my testimony was that the extent to
which unreported income is in the households of SNAP recipients,
off-the-books earnings, is something we should study.
Ms. FUDGE. Do you know the number?
Mr. DOAR. I do not know the number
Ms. FUDGE. That is the question, sir. That is my question.
Mr. DOAR.I am giving my experience.
Ms. FUDGE. Second, you indicated that these people are being
paid off the books. So if you are aware of businesses who are illegally paying people under the table, have you reported that abuse?
Mr. DOAR. No, I have not reported that abuse.
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
57
Ms. FUDGE. Okay. That is the answer that I need, you have not.
Either you dont know or you have not reported, and in either case,
you should.
Mr. DOAR. It is something that needs to be studied and looked
into because it is clear it is happening.
Ms. FUDGE. So you dont know. Okay.
Let me just ask this question as well.
Ms. Squier, you indicated that if someone just gets a brochure
that they are eligible for TANF.
Ms. Dean, is that accurate?
Ms. SQUIER. Not TANF.
Ms. DEAN. Under the TANF block grant, states can spend TANF
funds on a wide variety of needs. TANF, bottom line, is a funding
stream, not a program. So, yes, states can spend TANF funds
Ms. FUDGE. How the state chooses, correct?
Ms. DEAN. Yes.
Ms. SQUIER. But that would be food stamps that I was indicating.
Ms. FUDGE. Go right ahead.
Ms. SQUIER. If someone receives a brochure about TANF, that
can in New Mexico make them eligible.
Ms. FUDGE. It can. It can. But you indicated that every single
person that gets it is eligible. That is what you said. I just want
to be clear.
Ms. SQUIER. And I believe in New Mexico that is true.
Ms. FUDGE. Okay. So that is New Mexico. I cant argue that because I dont know New Mexico law.
Let me just also ask, I mean, we have heard a lot about fraud.
And my friend Mr. McAllister, who I think is such a wonderful person, he says that he sees this in his district. I have heard a lot of
my colleagues say the same thing. But I dont know that anybody
reports it.
If there is so much fraud and you see it, why would it not be reported? We are all sworn to uphold the law in this body. And so
I would hope that if someone sees fraud that they would report it,
because then maybe we could get a handle and maybe we would
give Mr. Doar the answers that he needs as to who is not doing
what they should be.
Ms. Dean, you talked earlier about the strong program integrity
and payment accuracy for SNAP. Could you just elaborate just a
bit on that for me briefly?
Ms. DEAN. Sure. First, when an applicant applies, they do fill out
in many places a very lengthy application. And then they are interviewed, and they have to provide paper verification of much of
what they attest to on the application. Then an independent body
within the state, quality control reviewers, pull each month a sample of cases and go back and independently check those. The Federal Government then goes in and re-reviews those. So it is an incredibly rigorous quality control system.
Last month, USDA issued the results for over and underpayments through this system for 2013, and they found record lows for
the seventh consecutive year; states have been bringing those over
and underpayment error rates down. The overpayment rate fell to
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
58
2.6 percent, and the underpayment rate was 0.6 percent, which
means a net loss to the government of about two percent.
I just want to compare that quickly to other systems. The last
year the IRS took a look at something similar was in 2006, and
there we had 17 percent of taxes legally due went unpaid. So,
frankly, the system does compare relatively well.
Ms. FUDGE. Thank you.
And I remember earlier on Ms. Squier mentioned the fact of the
numbers of people who pay taxes and those who did not. And I am
certain you meant to include in that group that does not multi-million dollar, multinational corporations as well, whose taxes could
significantly help poor people and hungry people.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that, again, SNAP is something
that people have very strong opinions about, pro and con. But what
I do know is that there are many hungry children in this country
who but for SNAP would not survive from day to day. There are
many people in this country who work hard every day to make a
living and feed their families who just need an extra help, just
need a hand up, not a handout.
And so I am hopeful that at some point we can come together
and decide what to do with this. As far as I am concerned we have
made a decision, the farm bill is done. Lets look forward to some
things that we really can change.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentlelady, the Ranking Member,
and all of the witnesses.
In summary of this hearing, I would point out that it is clear to
me that the Administration and the previous Administration both
promoted SNAP signups in various ways, particularly with a September 30, 2009, statement. If we are looking at reining in growth,
we didnt speak very much about the governors abusing the system
and sending $20 LIHEAP checks, but that is part of the categorical
eligibility that I would like to be expanded a little further on.
The work requirements are an alternative. And then some other
discussion we had was block grants, cost-share. And something
that didnt come up that I am interested also is state investigative
authority.
So this has opened up a lot of topics, and I think it has expanded
the dialogue. We have a common cause that it is important that
we take these resources and apply them to the best use. And I
think we all do agree on that.
So under the rules of the Committee, the record of todays hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive additional material and supplementary written responses from the witnesses to
any questions posed by a Member.
This Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, and
Nutrition hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:00 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
59
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY HON. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM,
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM NEW MEXICO
Ms. SQUIER. There are no current backlogs, maam. And you are right that
there was a backlog, and that is because the Affordable Care Act and the Federal Government sent incomplete files to us. So we had extra work to do to the
tune of about 30,000 of them a month.
Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. I completely disagree with you about that. But in any
event, I raise these issues to point out that the partnership is important. New
Mexico had a model SNAP program. It does not today. And that making sure
that we have a balanced approach, Mr. Chairman, I think is an effective way
forward.
The following documents were filed by the New Mexico Human Services Department (HSD) with the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico on July 22,
2014. Table 5, demonstrates a backlog of 15,480 applications for assistance as of
July 2014.
Case 1:88cv00385KGCG Document 5191 Filed 07/22/14
Exhibit 1
Overdue Plan Status Report as of July 15, 2014
Week 4: July 1418
Typical incoming case
count
SW Bernalillo
NPC *
Post Backlog Monitoring: **
Handling the
volume?
No. Cases over

30 days
290
Dismantled Unit
Team Goal
1,000 Cases/day
117
1,816
No. Cases over
30 days
Chaves County ISD

Cibola County ISD
Colfax County ISD
Curry County ISD
East Dona Ana County ISD
Eddy Artesia County ISD
Eddy Carlsbad County ISD
Grant County ISD
Guadalupe County ISD
Hidalgo County ISD
Lea County ISD
Lincoln County ISD
Luna County ISD
McKinley County ISD
Medicaid Renewal Project
Northeast Bernalillo County ISD
Northwest Bernalillo County ISD
Otero County ISD
Quay County ISD
Rio Arriba County ISD
Roosevelt County ISD
San Juan County ISD
San Miguel County CSU
San Miguel County ISD
Sandoval County ISD
Santa Fe County ISD
Sierra County ISD
Socorro County ISD
South Dona Ana ISD
Southeast Bernalillo County ISD
Taos County ISD
Tierra Amarilla County ISD
Torrance County CSU
Torrance County ISD
Union County ISD
Valencia North County ISD
Valencia South County ISD
West Dona Ana County ISD
0
0
0
9
19
1
0
0
0
0
151
15
0
111
5
169
0
0
1
0
1
39
0
0
6
0
2
8
0
5
0
7
47
6
0
0
1
10
Total
* 2,546
* Total includes Application Registration, Intake, Processing and Recertification.

** Offices in Post Backlog Monitoring are working overdue cases for Week 4 offices.
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 6621
Sfmt 6621
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 6621
Sfmt 6621
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
0
1
0
0
1,486
79
194
142
111
64
79
Applications from
FFM that are not
registered yet
(pending tasks in
ASPEN)
12,628
9
76
0
536
26
102
0
11,879
Sep-13
15,009
363
220
8
1,206
43
303
0
12,866
Oct-13
14,046
644
280
25
1,617
44
295
0
11,141
Nov-13
14
17
2
3
14
30
25
32
30
209
767
Applications from
ASPEN that are
not registered yet
(pending tasks in
ASPEN)
17,226
1,628
572
225
3,195
50
1,078
0
10,478
Dec-13
* This Summary is still under review and subject to change. 7/15/2014.
Total
YESNM
HSD Kiosk
Community Partners
ASPEN
PE/MOSAA
SDX Interface (SSI Cases)
FFM
ISD2 applications
9
262
184
277
543
427
1,024
867
370
89
650
Applications from
YESNM that are
not registered yet
(pending tasks in
ASPEN)
52
532
1,268
2,664
2,702
1,675
1,703
1,582
2,450
1,020
410
Applications from
YESNM that are
disposed as
duplicate before
registration
0
0
0
0
166
359
130
176
90
252
17
Applications from
FFM that are
disposed as
duplicate before
registration
24,133
4,108
1,065
590
5,389
91
406
10,889
1,595
Jan-14
18,466
5,101
1,361
782
6,782
137
352
3,024
927
Feb-14
25,687
6,563
1,486
1,562
7,731
132
392
7,537
284
Mar-14
21,492
6,520
994
1,155
8,278
454
426
3,665
Apr-14
27,805
11,724
997
1,392
11,898
319
472
1,003
May-14
13,663
4,622
818
387
6,254
454
423
275
5,025
1,545
356
140
2,516
218
148
207
0
Jul-14
30,599
37,346
33,577
40,458
38,014
39,091
47,408
49,519
56,467
31,778
14,034
Total Applications
Jun-14
28,288
29,331
23,366
19,784
5,422
1,236
284
ISD2 Applications
Table2(a) Total Medicaid applications registeredBroken down by source

Description: The summary of this table will provide the number of Medicaid applications registered for a given month.
2,236
7,203
8,757
17,730
27,681
35,285
44,048
46,720
53,416
30,144
12,111
Total Applications
Registered in
ASPEN
Number of Medicaid Applications

registered (by source)
Sep-13
Oct-13
Nov-13
Dec-13
Jan-14
Feb-14
Mar-14
Apr-14
May-14
Jun-14
Jul-14
Month
Table1 Total application receivedSummary for ALL PROGRAMS

Description: The summary of this table will provide the number of application received IN THE MONTH.
Exhibit 2 *
Applications and Eligible Clients Summary
* This Summary is still under review and subject to change. 7/15/2014.
60
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 6621
Sfmt 6621
YESNM
HSD Kiosk
Community Partners
ASPEN
PE/MOSAA
FFM
5,227
164
179
6
621
0
0
4,257
Oct-13
3,852
197
239
6
586
0
0
2,824
Nov-13
4,264
473
411
12
1,102
0
0
2,266
Dec-13
3,938
955
700
44
1,576
0
0
663
Jan-14
3,390
1,123
762
39
1,440
0
26
Feb-14
3,886
1,333
834
47
1,670
2
0
Mar-14
4,401
1,481
619
40
2,077
182
2
Apr-14
5,452
2,389
753
45
2,262
3
May-14
13,458
33
207
0
852
0
0
12,366
Sep-13
14,989
495
514
7
1,762
3
0
12,208
Oct-13
13,101
703
737
9
2,250
1
0
9,401
Nov-13
13,879
1,450
1,277
49
4,061
2
0
7,040
Dec-13
14,342
3,235
2,182
168
5,589
4
0
3,164
Jan-14
12,401
3,779
2,585
231
5,517
5
1
283
Feb-14
14,753
4,828
2,917
316
6,683
8
1
Mar-14
16,027
5,456
1,921
350
7,751
547
2
Apr-14
18,864
8,509
2,142
328
7,874
11
May-14
Sep-13
3
31
0
63
0
0
183
176
2
1,378
2
0
Oct-13
249
193
3
1,277
0
0
Nov-13
592
386
19
2,690
1
0
Dec-13
1,203
561
52
3,213
3
0
Jan-14
1,428
563
60
2,979
5
7
Feb-14
1,512
439
81
2,235
4
21
Mar-14
1,481
268
40
1,923
82
5
Apr-14
1,952
277
59
1,854
5
3
May-14
Table2(d) Total LIHEAP applications registeredBroken down by source

Description: The summary of this table will provide the number of LIHEAP applications registered for a given month.
Number of LIHEAP Applications

Total
YESNM
HSD Kiosk
Community Partners
ASPEN
PE/MOSAA
FFM
ISD2 applications
4,413
9
75
0
286
0
0
4,043
Sep-13
Table2(c) Total SNAP applications registeredBroken down by source

Description: The summary of this table will provide the number of SNAP applications registered for a given month.
Number of SNAP Applications

Total
YESNM
HSD Kiosk
Community Partners
ASPEN
PE/MOSAA
FFM
ISD2 applications
Number of Cash Applications

Table2(b) Total Cash applications registeredBroken down by source

Description: The summary of this table will provide the number of cash applications registered for a given month.
889
202
35
1,521
7
3
Jun-14
11,773
3,922
1,597
157
6,093
3
1
Jun-14
3,880
1,251
601
47
1,978
3
0
Jun-14
447
84
14
688
3
0
Jul-14
5,090
1,738
719
78
2,552
3
0
0
Jul-14
1,803
619
266
19
899
0
0
0
Jul-14
61
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
N/A
1,741
97
Oct-13
N/A
Sep-13
1,722
N/A
Nov-13
3,688
N/A
Dec-13
5,032
N/A
Jan-14
5,042
N/A
Feb-14
4,292
N/A
Mar-14
3,799
N/A
Apr-14
4,150
N/A
May-14
2,657
N/A
Jun-14
1,236
N/A
Jul-14
Frm 00066
Fmt 6621
Sfmt 6621
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
Total
789
335
33
51
244
114
12
Sep-13
5,991
1,333
129
266
1,200
417
2,646
Oct-13
7,976
2,439
228
336
1,826
496
2,651
Nov-13
16,371
4,816
326
680
3,857
1,875
4,817
Dec-13
25,867
9,711
476
1,036
5,634
3,295
5,715
Jan-14
33,080
14,835
693
1,109
6,472
3,957
6,014
Feb-14
36,140
18,245
879
1,303
6,999
4,702
4,012
Mar-14
37,199
19,085
985
1,550
7,558
5,104
2,917
Apr-14
35,887
19,013
1,190
1,830
8,263
5,534
57
May-14
32,008
16,501
1,021
1,852
7,165
5,417
52
Jun-14
Program
414
166
25
86
73
27
37
Sep-13
2,241
767
109
454
472
112
327
Oct-13
4,287
1,298
246
811
1,239
179
514
Nov-13
8,298
3,155
418
1,206
2,075
294
1,150
Dec-13
12,467
4,057
694
2,033
3,400
605
1,678
Jan-14
15,237
5,203
1,041
2,302
3,793
737
2,161
Feb-14
18,576
7,850
1,166
2,544
4,451
789
1,776
Mar-14
19,036
7,111
1,144
2,884
5,160
1,107
1,630
Apr-14
21,101
7,874
1,403
3,491
5,031
1,388
1,914
May-14
12,568
2,348
891
2,430
2,041
746
4,112
Jun-14
Table3(b) Total applications certified by programPending to Denied

Description: The summary of this table will provide the number of applications that were disposed and denied in the given month.
Medicaid
Medicare Savings Program
Cash
SNAP (Non Expedite)
SNAP (Expedite)
LIHEAP
Total
Medicaid (includes Long Term

Care and disabled)
Cash
SNAP (Non Expedite)
SNAP {Expedite)
LIHEAP
Program
1,138
493
1,063
1,022
299
1,842
Jul-14
14,054
7,109
503
893
3,385
2,148
16
Jul-14
Table3(a) Total applications certified by programPending to Approved

Description: The summary of this table will provide the number of applications that were disposed and approved in the given month (excluding ISD2 figures).
N/A = Not available.
Total
ISD2 applications
Number of LIHEAP Applications

Table2(d) Total LIHEAP applications registeredBroken down by sourceContinued

Description: The summary of this table will provide the number of LIHEAP applications registered for a given month.
62
BRIAN
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 6621
14
13
0
1
0
0
Oct-13
56
27
1
14
14
3
Nov-13
98
61
0
15
22
4
189
124
3
22
40
9
Dec-13
238
125
1
56
56
21
Jan-14
321
164
8
59
90
28
Feb-14
345
181
6
62
96
33
Mar-14
391
225
5
53
108
40
Apr-14
482
202
8
83
140
49
May-14
449
142
7
96
156
48
Jun-14
Sep-13
55
557
Oct-13
1,291
Nov-13
2,682
Dec-13
2,896
Jan-14
2,036
Feb-14
1,867
Mar-14
1,782
Apr-14
2,569
May-14
643
Jun-14
Table4 Total number of applications disposed as duplicate before registration

Description: The summary of this table will provide the number of applications that are disposed as duplicate applications before registration.
Sep-13
54
3
54
99
14
428
Jul-14
224
Jul-14
Sfmt 6621
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
Medicaid
Total
2,303
258
60
92
189
47
1,657
As of Feb. 28, 2014
4,632
728
112
235
580
183
2,794
As of Mar. 31, 2014
7,903
1,793
186
426
1,148
397
3,953
As of April 30, 2014
15,539
5,846
424
889
2,580
661
5,139
As of May 31, 2014
15,134
8,010
623
1,410
4,370
0
669
As of Jun. 30, 2014
Program
BRIAN
189,171
Sep-13
209,139
Oct-13
400,930
Nov-13
425,505
Dec-13
568,456
Jan-14
589,143
Feb-14
614,606
Mar-14
615,814
Apr-14
616,304
May-14
631,381
Jun-14
638,669
Jul-14
15,480
7,481
656
1,454
4,479
0
1,355
As of Jul. 15, 2014
Table7 Total eligible individuals by program

Description: The summary of this table will provide the total number of eligible clients for a program for a given month (as of 7/15/2014).
Medicaid
Cash
SNAP (Non Expedite)
SNAP (Expedite)
LIHEAP
Program
Table5 Total number of applications overdue by program as of July 15 2014 (MayJuly are primarily ineligibles Pending due to Court Order)
Description: The summary of this table will provide the number of applications that completed application registration and a case was associated to the application
and the program is overdue as of July 11, 2014.
Total
Total
Medicaid
Cash
SNAP (Non Expedite)
SNAP (Expedite)
Program
Table3(c) Total applications certified by programPending to Closed

Description: The summary of this table will provide the number of applications that were disposed and approved for a month and were closed for the ongoing
months in the given month (excluding ISD2 figures).
63
VerDate Mar 15 2010
16:31 Sep 05, 2014
Jkt 041481
PO 00000
Sep-13
13,505
16,665
156,386
5,049
705,866
Sep-13
13,837
18,665
163,956
23,782
684,526
Oct-13
25,255
27,798
321,799
20,102
257,411
Nov-13
25,626
28,834
326,145
19,122
273,879
Dec-13
35,145
38,915
434,121
21,647
5,718
Jan-14
35,842
39,423
435,603
13,597
366
Feb-14
35,930
38,540
431,658
8,799
5
Mar-14
35,736
38,338
427,839
5,914
0
Apr-14
36,283
38,082
422,152
3,721
0
May-14
37,161
39,213
440,103
4,176
0
Jun-14
565
Frm 00068
7,302
Oct-13
8,868
Nov-13
12,665
Dec-13
17,850
Jan-14
Fmt 6621
16,400
Feb-14
23,968
Mar-14
12,782
Apr-14
10,901
May-14
12,334
Jun-14
Table8 Total number of applications from YESNM as of July 15 2014

Description: The summary of this table will provide the number of Self Service Applications registered for a given month (as of July 1, 2014)

Cash
SNAP
LIHEAP
ISD2 Clients
Program
Table7 Total eligible individuals by programContinued

Description: The summary of this table will provide the total number of eligible clients for a program for a given month (as of 7/15/2014).
4,978
Jul-14
38,034
37,787
441,604
1,438
0
Jul-14
64
Sfmt 6621
I:\DOCS\113-18\88943.TXT
BRIAN

Hearing

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hearing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HEARING TO EXAMINE THE ROLE OF THE

SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS,

JULY 24, 2014

Serial No. 11318

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

VerDate Mar 15 2010

16:31 Sep 05, 2014

NICOLE SCOTT, Staff Director

DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS, OVERSIGHT,

STEVE KING, Iowa, Chairman

VerDate Mar 15 2010

16:31 Sep 05, 2014

Fudge, Hon. Marcia L., a Representative in Congress from Ohio, opening

VerDate Mar 15 2010

16:31 Sep 05, 2014

VerDate Mar 15 2010

16:31 Sep 05, 2014

HEARING TO EXAMINE THE ROLE OF THE

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE KING, A

VerDate Mar 15 2010

16:31 Sep 05, 2014

VerDate Mar 15 2010

16:31 Sep 05, 2014

HON. STEVE KING,

VerDate Mar 15 2010

16:31 Sep 05, 2014

The CHAIRMAN. And I would like to now recognize my colleague

VerDate Mar 15 2010

16:31 Sep 05, 2014

VerDate Mar 15 2010

16:31 Sep 05, 2014

VerDate Mar 15 2010

16:31 Sep 05, 2014

VerDate Mar 15 2010

16:31 Sep 05, 2014

VerDate Mar 15 2010

16:31 Sep 05, 2014

Source: Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. Excludes

VerDate Mar 15 2010

16:31 Sep 05, 2014

VerDate Mar 15 2010

16:31 Sep 05, 2014

a detailed description of SNAP eligibility requirements see GAO12670.

VerDate Mar 15 2010

16:31 Sep 05, 2014

VerDate Mar 15 2010

16:31 Sep 05, 2014

VerDate Mar 15 2010

16:31 Sep 05, 2014

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Squier.

VerDate Mar 15 2010

16:31 Sep 05, 2014

Mr. DOAR. Thank you, Chairman King, Ranking Member Fudge,

VerDate Mar 15 2010

16:31 Sep 05, 2014

VerDate Mar 15 2010

16:31 Sep 05, 2014

VerDate Mar 15 2010

16:31 Sep 05, 2014

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, USDA.

VerDate Mar 15 2010